2018 Primary -- VOTE TUESDAY!!

I voted Friday. 

In the county sheriff primary, I wish incumbent Kiki Vigil had only one challenger. Having talked to deputies and watched the department deteriorate, I hope Kiki – for whom I voted in 2014 – loses. With name recognition and four challengers, he probably won't; but Eddie Lerma and Kim Stewart, two very different candidates, offer the best chances. Lerma has extensive local law-enforcement experience, and law-enforcement endorsements, while Stewart offers new ideas and extensive law-enforcement experience elsewhere. 

Last-minute information strengthened my preference for Steve Fischmann in the PRC race, despite annoying ads from both sides. We have a clear choice between a public-interest candidate (Fischmann) who'll fight for a fair shake from the utilities and for faster progress toward renewables at fair prices, and current PRC Chair Sandy Jones. Jones seems too close to regulated utilities. He complains that environmental groups concerned about climate change are backing Fischmann; but Jones is getting huge backing from companies that benefit from his decisions. PNM, a major utility he regulates, dropped $440,000 this month on a PAC that's been inundating us with misleading mailers against Fischmann. Officially, Jones has no connection with “New Mexicans for Progress.” But a PRC source has described seeing top PNM officials visiting with Jones in his office before meetings. Judging from Jones's mailer attacking Merrie Lee Soules the Saturday before the 2014 primary, expect a similarly misleading attack on Fischmann.

I voted for Xochitl Torres-Small for Congress – with great delight. I'll strongly support either Democrat against any of the Republicans; but I know and trust Xochitl. Years ago I thought she'd be a great candidate for this seat. 

Nothing against Mad Hildebrandt. However, recently, she seems to be on the attack over Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) interest in Xochitl.  Instead of attacking Xochi because the DCCC sees in her what a lot of us see, Mad should focus on issues and how Dems take back this seat. DCCC apparently has not contributed money during the primary.  Almost all of the "Top Donors" to Mad's campaign, as listed on the Secretary of State's website, are out-of-staters, mostly in tech. [Note: this paragraph was changed as a result of my further review of it, sparked by a complaint from Mad.  The paragraph apparently overstated the amount of her out-of-state support, for which I apologize.]

Land Commissioner is a far more important job than folks realize. Garrett VeneKlasen and Stephanie Garcia Richard are viable candidates, the former the favorite of environmental groups. George Muñoz, who voted against banning coyote-killing contests, doesn't deserve our votes. He's raging at conservation groups now, calling them “special-interest groups” because their concern about our environment makes them leery of him. 

I voted for Bill McCamley, a dream candidate for state auditor. I voted for Billy Garrett for Lieutenant-Governor because he's the real deal. Deputy County Assessor Paul Ponce has learned the job in eight years as deputy, and deserves our votes. I voted for Micaela Lara Cadeña for State Rep. I recommend Karen Trujillo, who seems likely to be a thoughtful, responsive, and responsible commissioner for District 5. (Delighted so many capable young women running!) 

Many great folks have worked hard. Please vote – thoughtfully.

                                                -30-

[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 3 June 2018, in  the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will be aired on KRWG and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM during the week.]

[Do want to emphasize appreciation for all local candidates, who ran good races.  A lot of votes were tough decisions between or among good candidates.  And from what I saw, a lot of the races were run in a positive way, with each candidate mostly promoting himself or herself, and her or his ideas and positions, rather than attacking each other.  (The PRC race was an unseemly exception.)]

[With regard to the PRC: as I mentioned in the column, Mr. Jones is not legally permitted to coordinate activities with the PNM PAC, and we should presume he's not breaking the law.  However, the very size, nature, and timing of the donations are extremely telling.  For PNM to contribute $440,000 in two weeks' time is unusual -- unprecedented, so far as I can tell -- which means PNM really cares about this one.  (The money is also going to support another PRC incumbent up north against challenger Janine Yazzi.)  PNM would stand to make millions of dollars more in the next few years under a Jones-led PRC than a PRC with Fischmann on it.  
I discuss the PNM funding of New Mexicans for Progress, and include some PNM documents, in a post from yesterday, Saturday.  [To reach that material, either page down or click here. ]

[Should note that just as PNM jumped on the scales in the PRC race, two big oil-and-gas companies jumped into the Land Commissioner race to support Muñoz.  There too, conservationists have been supporting Garrett VeneKlasen or Stephanie Garcia-Richard.  It'll be interesting to see how the industries' huge media show will affect the voting.   (Thanks again, Citizens United!)]

"Regulated" Utility Gives Big Bucks to PRC "Regulators"

[this post is a DRAFT pending time to proof it]

PNM, a major utility regulated by the PRC, dropped $440,000 just this month into a PAC heavily supporting Sandy Jones and Linda Lovejoy in this year's two PRC races.   An Albuquerque Journal story over the weekend discusses that and the last-minute rush of oil companies to support Land Commission candidate George Muñoz.  In each case the utilities and oil companies are seeking to kill off the growing popularity of a more progressive candidate (Steve Fischmann here and Janene Yazzie in Navajo country) the big companies feel threatens their outsized profits.

For PNM to contribute $440,000 in two weeks' time is unusual -- unprecedented, so far as I can tell.  The only time this specific entity (PNM Resources) had previously been used this way in New Mexico was to give a much smaller amount to the Republican Campaign Committee in 2010.  Since, PNM has contributed a lot of political money, to prominent Republicans and Democrats who can help it -- but in far smaller amounts, so far as I can tell. 
 
The big bucks would seem to mean PNM really cares about this one.  It stands to make millions of dollars more in the next few years under a Jones-led PRC than a PRC with Fischmann (and Yazzie) on it.  Jones has overruled hearing examiners (and the PRC counsel's advice) to back PNM's wishes in some recent 3-2 votes, two of them now on appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court.  [Interestingly, the PNM-funded PAC immediately paid big bucks to Republican Susana Martinez's chief political guru to make things happen -- and the things so far have included costly TV ads (allegedly misleading) and a bunch of mailers.)

All this makes for some weird stuff: for example, when a mailer from the PNM-funded PAC says Jones "saves New Mexicans money by successfully advocating for lower utility rates,"  that essentially means a company that likes utility rates to make it a solid profit is paying to tell you to vote for a guy who will lower those rates.  The company that fights hard before the PRC to get a higher percentage of our money is paying for mailers stating that their favored candidate "successfully advocates for lower energy rates to keep prices down and more of your hard-earned money in your pocket."  The utility that fought renewable energy in various ways for years is advertising a PRC candidate as protecting our environment by ensuring use of 20% renewables by 2020.
To put it another way, all this advertising says the candidate is "standing up for consumers."   He makes decisions that raise or lower utility income and lower or raise what we pay.  How does knowing the utility is paying big bucks to re-elect him affect one's reading of those mailers?

The contributing PNM entity's statement stressed the legality of the contributions under current law, and asserted that the contributions also were appropriate:

"PNM Resources' participation is legal, appropriate, and necessary to help ensure a fair election.  Important policy decisions will be made by our next generation of elected officials, and we want to ensure that voters have the information to understand each candidate's position on key public policy issues.  PNM Resources' shareholders are funding the company's participation in New Mexicans for Progress."
Others have questioned the "appropriateness" of such a huge contribution.  New Energy Economy spokesperson Mariel Nanasi called it "shocking," while Yazzi said it was designed to retain regulators who don't regulate.

Mr. Jones is not legal permitted to coordinate activities with the PNM PAC.  We should presume he's not breaking the law.   However, he's close to some top PNM execs.  A PRC source (unidentified for obvious reasons, but someone I spoke to at length) says certain PNM people often visit with Mr. Jones before PRC meetings.  (That doesn't necessarily mean they're discussing anything they shouldn't, of course.)  And Mariel Nanasi reports seeing PNM lobbyists at a Jones fundraiser on February 5th.  And around the time PNM made its last-minute contributions, Jones was complaining of the large influx of money from environmental and consumer-oriented groups favoring his opponent.

And it's interesting to read an internal PNM memo from 2014, when Jones was running for this PRC seat:

That is, in 2014, according to a PNM executive, Mr. Jones responded to news of an endorsement by saying "he could use some help with the campaign."  The exec, uncertain whether that was an actual request "for PNM's help considering the delicate situation regarding helping those that regulate us", passed it upward.  The "delicate situation," I think, is that it's illegal under New Mexico law.  I stress that the PNM exec wrote in the memo that he wasn't sure that saying Jones could use some help with the campaign was an actual request for help, and therefore we shouldn't jump to any conclusion either.  

In any case, it's interesting that Jones "really liked Ron [Darnell, a PNM Senior VP] and that Ron has helped him better understand the utility business."  Some of that help in understanding the utility business might have included this letter:

What that seems to say is that Mr. Jones had been asking how our homeowners' solar panels are affecting PNM's bottom-line.  The utility tells him that the impact was just $352,855 (in lost fixed costs recovery) in 2010, but has risen under rules helping develop renewables, and will reach nearly six and a half million dollars by 2016.  I can't imagine PNM thought that impact was a really great thing -- but here it is in 2018 advertising a candidate based on the fact that he's pushing renewables along.

Interesting.  Kind of sad, from my point of view. 

 

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.]