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)

PRC I

[This is the first of two columns on the Public Regulation Commission, with the second to be published next Sunday.]

In our changing world, how is the Public Regulation Commission (PRC) performing as a protector of the public? 

The world is moving toward renewable energy sources. Soon each house, business, and manufacturer will supply most or all of its energy from solar panels. A new California law requires that new buildings include solar panels – and even the home-builders apparently agree. Yeah, a new home will cost a bit more; but minimal or nonexistent utility bills will rapidly repay the investment. 

Lower solar costs and rapid improvements in storage are facilitating a decentralized system. The power grid will become more like a bank, with each of us depositing a bit of excess power much of the time and occasionally borrowing back some. We no longer need nearly so many huge gas-fired plants constantly sending large amounts of energy to our cities.

That decentralization is what utilities fear most. If they can build and own huge systems – gas, coal, nuclear, even solar – they make big profits. By tying profits to capital expenditures, our state's system arguably encourages waste. But if we each generate more of that energy, and utilities create less power (and transfer it from afar) and mostly direct energy traffic through the grid, their profits and our rates are more limited. Utilities have been standing on the brakes of this change, but it's coming. 

It could be here now. 

Meanwhile, El Paso Electric builds more huge plants because that's more profitable than energy-efficiency measures such as time-of-use rates, lowering peak demand, and encouraging distributed rooftop solar. 

The PRC has approved five new EPE gas plants in five years. These deals saddle us with those plants – and their high costs – for 40-50 years. One estimate says those new gas plants could cost us $5 billion over time. 

A friend compares it to investing zillions in mainframe computers just when PCs were taking over the world. Will we spend decades paying for dinosaurs? 

The PRC decides how we invest, after considering complex analyses and arguments. The playing field might seem tilted against us. Utility companies' sole legal duty and desire is to maximize profits. They have highly capable lawyers they pay well, passing on the costs to us. Although many states' PRCs have independent customer advocates, paid to argue for ratepayers' interests, we don't. The PRC hears one side presented by top professionals, and the other side presented by a few dedicated nonlawyer volunteers – assuming they can even negotiate the procedural maze those lawyers know by heart. (Recently some cities and counties have also intervened.) 

Even if commissioners are unbiased and want to be fair, they're hearing a case skewed toward one side. 

Despite that, hearing examiners, who read all the briefs and hear all the witnesses, have recently recommended decisions against utilities. PRC counsel has agreed. But the Commission has repeatedly voted 3-2 to overrule the hearing examiner in favor of utilities. (PRC Chair Sandy Jones has logical explanations for the votes, and notes he's overruled the hearing examiner in ways the utilities didn't like, including overruling one decision that intervenor Merrie Lee Soules's testimony couldn't be considered.) 

Those two cases are on appeal to New Mexico's Supreme Court. 

Since 2008 real median income in New Mexico is down 3.6%. Public Service Company of New Mexico's compensation is up 122%, and its stock price up 301%. 

It's hard not to be concerned.

                                     -30-

[This column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 20 May 2018, and also 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.  Next week's column will discuss in more detail the candidates for the PRC, incumbent Sandy Jones and former State Senator Steve Fischmann.]

[I mention the 3-2 votes to overrule the hearing examiner.  I'll discuss those more fully in the next post, next Sunday.  Both look bad: in one, involving further investment in a coal plant in Four Corners area, PNM had reached a settlement with certain parties (by giving those categories especially low rates, to the detriment of most ratepayers) and the hearing examiner, after a hearing, recommended rejecting the settlement.  The PRC's lawyer agreed.  The Commission initially voted to follow the recommendation.  Two months later, three commissioners, including Jones, voted to reverse that decision and accept the settlement.  That meant PNM got the higher rates it wanted.  Jones said there was little choice, because the law set a deadline for the decision and there wasn't an adequate record.  An opponent pointed out that the law he cited had changed; and the PNM's own lawyer obviously thought the commission could safely reject the proposed settlement.  I'm no expert, and am still looking into this stuff.
In the other case, again rejecting the advice of a hearing examiner and the PRC's lawyer, the Commission (3-2) approved PNM's plan for meeting its renewable energy requirements.  Critics have made much of the fact that PNM was contracting with Affordable Solar for five solar fields on PNM would own.  The period for bids was only 30 days, and had other problems, so that one expert witness called it "rigged" and the Hearing Examiner agreed it was unfair.  One issue -- on which experts disagreed -- was whether the 30 days was or wasn't enough.  Some argued that for such a complex project, as a turnkey deal, 90 days would have been more appropriate; but others (and Jones, when we talked) said that because of the complexity, and the sophistication of potential bidders, the 60 days' difference wouldn't have mattered because bidders either had a system ready to propose or they didn't.  If they did, 30 days was enough.  If they didn't, the extra 60 days wouldn't help.  Jones says he's an expert on construction.  I'm not.  But, again, obviously the hearing examiner saw it differently.  
Jones's opponent have made much of the fact that Jones gets significant campaign contributions from Affordable Solar and related parties.  It doesn't look good.  Jones points out that Affordable Solar -- which got a $73 million contract -- wasn't directly regulated, as PNM is; that Affordable Solar is a great and New Mexican company; and that the appeal is delaying this and other renewable energy projects.]

Thanks! -- a Column on Writing Columns

Today is the seventh anniversary of our move back to Las Cruces. Within months I started writing these columns. I doubt they've changed Las Cruces much, but they've changed me. 

Strangers express their appreciation of the columns and radio commentary in strong terms, thanking me. I feel a mixture of gratitude and the sense that I'm not doing enough to deserve such generous praise.

Nor do I deserve the insulting lecture someone gave me Thursday, “you people have your mind all made up” and “you don't want to listen to all the facts.” Actually, I do. As I explained, I do have strong views, but I try above all to be fair and accurate. 

This week saw an unusual number and variety of events and conversations generated by the columns. A county commissioner joked with regard to my column on DASO enforcing immigration laws that “you're dictating our agenda to us.” An acquaintance sent a two year-old spaceport-related column around to his mailing list. That column was an example of an occasional phenomena: sometimes someone tells me of a situation, or I read something, and quickly write a first draft; but when I talk to the subject of the column and hear the other side, I scrap the column or enrich it by articulating both sides. That one I muted, turning predictions of certain doom into questions with alternative answers.

Sometimes acquaintances and strangers express concern, asking whether I get a lot of abuse from people for my columns. (Not so much, actually.) 

Such concerns, like the criticism, spark inner questions about why I continue. Why do I? I suppose because public figures sometimes forget to tell the truth, and someone should remind them; and because I can fill that need reasonably well. 

In another life, I'd write more about coyotes, toads, and roadrunners, or appreciative (human) character studies. I'd write gentle, folksy columns full of practical wisdom – if I had any wisdom.

But stuff happens; and people tell me about it, sometimes confidentially, fearing retaliation. Like many of us (maybe more so, having grown up rooting for the Brooklyn Dodgers) I like underdogs. Sympathy won't convince me inaccurate speculation is fact, but will motivate me to investigate and, if appropriate, shine what light I can into dark corners.

I really started these columns in 1975, as the Las Cruces Bureau Chief for the El Paso Times. They appeared three times a week. I called them, “130 South Water” – our address. Sometimes, passing there or contemplating the unchanging Organ Mountains, or noticing names of friends like Bob Munson, Jake Hands, Albert Johnson, Gerald Thomas, and Pete Domenici on buildings, I wonder how it would be, and how I would be, if I'd stayed here writing columns and stories for four decades. 

I love this place. Writing hundreds of columns has helped me know it and love it better than I otherwise might. I'm grateful for that. And for so much gracious support.

I'm also grateful to people who talk to me when telling the truth ain't what their bosses want done, or could be dangerous; to the Sun-News and to KRWG; and to people I disagree with. I think they usually see that while I may reject some of what they say, I do not reject them as people. Neighbors who disagree are still neighbors. Our candid disagreements are the best road toward truth. 

Thanks!

                                              -30-

[This column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 13 May 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-LP 101.5 FM.]

[I think a major thing I wanted to say was, "Thanks to you, reading this."  Writing these columns is a distraction, sometimes taking a lot of time, and you keep me writing them, for better or for worse.] 

[As to those earlier columns, I think I wrote them thrice weekly for the last two of my three years as Las Cruces Bureau Chief, February 1974 to January 1975.  I had advantages then: it was an earlier day; and when people saw this long-haired hippie show up at city council meetings and plunk his motorcycle helmet down on the press table, they quickly guessed they could trust the crazy guy to protect confidentiality under pressure.  So people talked to me.  It was an interesting time.]

[One column which changed after I got to talk with the subject was Doings at Dusty Spaceport (May 2015), which concerned Exos Aerospace.  I'd drafted one that piled on Exos as probably a fraud, but talking with John Quinn from Exos led me to mute the mocking, and end not with a conclusion but with a question: Will Exos will help save the Dusty Desert Spaceport? Tune in next year.

Greg Lennes reminded me of that a couple of months ago by attaching it to an email he sent around asking what had happened to a planned launch by Exos earlier this year.  So I just googled "Expos Aerospace launch" and got the company's website, where you can sign up for flights.  An April 2016 statement announced a five-year partnership with Spaceport America, describing Exos as "a leading developer of suborbital reusable space launch vehicles."

A more recent story recites, "Exos is planning a first launch April 7 from Spaceport America, flying to an altitude of at least 80 kilometers. Preparations for the launch will begin in the week leading up to it, Quinn said, as the rocket and support personnel travel from Texas to New Mexico.

"The rocket will be carrying payloads for customers, Quinn said, but did not disclose their names. One goal of the flight, he said, is to qualify to be a part of NASA’s Flight Opportunities program, which contracts with several companies to fly suborbital research payloads. The program’s current suborbital flight providers include Blue Origin, UP Aerospace and Virgin Galactic."

April 7 didn't see a launch, as far as I know, and Doug Messier on the blog "Parabolic Arc" says Spaceport America and Exos announced a launch for May 5 -- which passed recently, and if there was news of a launch I didn't see it.  This morning an email said the launch was now set for this weekend, televised, but I've no idea whether anything happened.

So by trying to be open-minded maybe I get conned sometimes into going easier on authorities.  On balance, I'm not overly troubled by that.  I am who I am, with plenty of faults, of which maybe that's one.  I do plan to look further into Exos: instinct told me it was a con job three years ago; I muted my comments to that effect (which would have been fun but might have been unduly harsh); and "con job" probably is too strong (Exos reportedly did complete "a fully integrated hot fire testing" in December), but three years have passed, with someone investing in Exos, and . . .   Anyway, I'll shoot for updating that column in a few months.]
 

Four Poems by Chuck Harper

This post contains four poems by my friend Chuck Harper, a retired pastor (United Church of Christ) but a very active poet.

They're worth reading independently of this, but the immediate motive for posting these here is for folks who may have been listening to "The Sunday Show" on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM [or stream at www.lccommunityradio.org ] Sunday, May 13th, 2018 (9-10 a.m.).  Chuck was my guest, and I asked him to read the four poems below.  Poems heard on radio can fly by real fast, so for anyone who liked these, . . .

[All Poems Copyright Charles Harper]

ACROSS THE ROOM                                                         

                                                                                     

How often in the evening hours we sit

together, though apart, in this room, each

within a lamp-lit circle, books in hand.

Tonight I lay my book aside, look through

soft shades of intervening space at you,

luminous in amber surround of light.

Sometimes you catch me at this game and ask,

What are you staring at?  Of course, you know.

Tonight you seem oblivious to my gaze

through long, long shadows of the fifty years

between this moment and that night when I

first awkwardly declared my love – or almost did.

Do you remember what I said?  I think

I am falling in love with you. As close

to ecstatic affirmation as this careful

boy could come.  Your response teetered on

the brink of saucy as you teased, You have

my full attention.  Keep me posted.

I did – until one day we both declared,

straight and clear, I love you!  You were nineteen,

spirited and beautiful.  Sometimes I miss

that girl – miss us both as we were.  Tonight

across the room I see this girl again,

radiant with light that only years can give.

I heard him read that at Palacio's one night, then again at the 2017 annual For Love of Lit reading.  It moved me tremendously.  I felt immediately, as I said during the radio interview we recently recorded, that it would be hard to find a more direct and moving portrait of young love . . . lasting decades.  If I recall correctly, he wrote that around the time of their 50th wedding anniversary, several years ago. 

   

About a year ago, Pat died.  (In fact, that For Love of Lit reading occurred while she was already in her terminal illness.)  Not immediately, but when he was ready (or, he likes to say, when Pat told him to go ahead), he wrote poems about, as he would put it, how their life together has changed. The three that follow are from that series, and are in chronological order.  I like each of them, find the progression interesting, and look forward to what's next.  (Fortunately we are in a poetry workshop together!) 

      SACRED SPACE

      We are alone

      in this hospital room

      Your surgeon has just left

      after telling us you are dying –

      a few weeks at most,

      perhaps only days

      Our tears are calm

      like these that now moisten

      my eyes as I write these lines

      I sit on the edge of your bed

      wordless –

      my hand caresses yours

      Time has vanished –

      Silence

      When time returns

      we find words

      to speak of our love,

      the immense good fortune

      of a long life together,

      our sorrow that this adventure

      is soon to end

      Our voices are hushed –

      We are in sacred space

          CONVERSATIONS

          These common daily exchanges

          that old folks, long together, have,

          did not end when you died

          I profess to know nothing

          about what lies beyond

          one’s final breath

          except the obvious decay

          of bone and flesh – and memories

          held close by those we’ve loved

          Yet, my conversation with you

          goes on.  Perhaps a lonely monologue.

          Though deep within my heart

          it seems a dialogue quite like

          we’ve had across our many years

          together – at times with words

          Sometimes a nod, a smile, a knowing

          wink, a hug, a look.  Silences,

          then and now, whispering

ACCOMPANIED

Together

on this cloudless, huge-sky

Saturday morning, trekking

up the mountain to Dripping Springs

I’ve hiked this trail often

but this is a first for you

You reminisce about yesterdays

when, because of chronic back pain,

you sat on the porch of the ranger station

waiting my return

You say you were content

watching the acrobatic antics

of Black Chinned Humming Birds,

reading your book, enjoying your view

of the high desert foot hills

sloping down into the valley

You continue – Since I died

I can go with you anywhere. 

I’m quite free

I’m sorry for your grief and loneliness.

By now you have figured out this is

a chronic condition.  Like my former

pesky back, your pain will fluctuate,

less to more, but never go away.

You can handle it

I am happy that you are happy

with my new freedom to be with you –

wherever

A Jack Rabbit crosses our trail.

Further in the distance three small birds

flash by too quickly to be named.

With binoculars I scan a high ridge

where once I had seen a mountain lion

I pick up the pace.  You stay with me.

Marvelous!