minutes of the regular open meeting new mexico …nmprc.state.nm.us/docs/older docs/12-22-11 om...

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR OPEN MEETING

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION December 22, 2011

TIME: 9:30 a. m. PLACE: PERA Building

A quorum was present as follows:

Members Present: Commission Chairman Patrick H. Lyons [telephonically] Commissioner Vice Chair Theresa Becenti-Aguilar Commissioner Jason A. Marks [telephonically] Commissioner Ben L. Hall Commissioner Douglas Howe

Members Absent:

Staff Present Johnny Montoya, Chief of Staff Robert Parker, Acting General Counsel Margaret Caffey-Moquin, Associate General Counsel Carol Rising, Legal Division Director Roy Stephenson, Utilities Division Director

Others Present Charmaine Clair, Stenographer

CALL TO ORDER

4th Floor Hearing Room 1120 Paseo de Peralta Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

The Regular Open Meeting was scheduled at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to proper notice under NMSA 1978, 10-15-1 (C), and the Commission's Open Meeting Policy. Commission Vice Chair Commissioner BecentiAguilar called the Regular Open meeting to order at 9:30 a.m., in the Fourth Floor Hearing Room, PERA Building, 1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

A copy of the sign-in sheet for the Regular Open Meeting is incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit 1.

A copy of the Agenda for th13 Regular Open meeting is incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit 2.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Ope1n Meeting December 22, 2011

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. INTRODUCTIONS

Chair Lyons welcomed Ms. Polkosnik and asked her to introduce herself.

Ms. Susana Polkosnik said she was the Associate General Counsel for EPCOR Utilities Incorporated from Edmonton, Alberta Canada.

3. MISCELLANEOUS ANNOUNCEMENTS

• Recognition of the Employee of the Month of November

Chairman Lyons said the recognition of the Employee of the Month would be done after Christmas leave because the employee had left for Christmas.

4. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Commissioner Marks proposed on the Action Items that the PNM case be considered last in order to consider the other two cases th at would be quicker.

Commissioner Marks moved to adopt the Agenda as amended with Case 11-00265 heard after the New Mexican American Water case. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no public comments.

7. CONSENT ACTION ITEMS

A. Transportation Division

11-00450-TR-M IN THE: MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF ITS MOVINIG DAY, LLC TO PROVIDE HOUSEHOLD GOODS CARRIER SERVICE AND FOR TEMPORARY AUTHORITY. (Bob Parker) Order

Commissioner Becenti•A,Iuilar moved to approve the order. Commissioner Howe seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote. So Ordered.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Ope1n Meeting December 22, 2011

8. REGULAR ACTION (Revised Agenda Order)

A. Utility Division Cases

10-00266-UT APPLICATION OF EL PASO ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR APPROVAL TO RECOVER REGULATORY DISINCENTIVES AND INCENTIVES ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

(Margaret Caffey-Moquin) Order

Ms. Caffey-Moquin said the case was before the Commission for a rehearing and oral argument December 2nd by EPE. The Commission's final order partially adopting the certification issued November 22, conditioned approval of an unopposed stipulation on the parties agreeing to modify the stipulated adder to include a reduced profit of 2 percent.

The stipulating parties requested the Commission's reconsideration and removal of that condition from the final order as well as other modifications.

A draft Order was prepared with grant reconsideration to address the motion that effectively denies motion on the merits and was consistent with what was done by the Commission with regard to the NMIEC's motion for rehearing in the PNM case. The rationale was there was little risk to the utility and for consistency, the motion was denied.

Commissioner Marks said Ms. Caffey-Moquin had the right substantive Order based on the Commission's discussion on PNM. He said the Commission said "no." He asked if they deny the rehearing, would that mean the parties could say they wouldn't change and EPE could come back and want a on their original case.

Ms. Caffey-Moquin said that was possible. She said on the top of page 2 of the draft Order was a provision that specified should the parties wish to resort to additional proceedings they were free to so. She said they could withdraw their Stipulation. She said if that wasn't clear enough she could revise that.

Commissioner Marks suggested language: "as this comes to the Commission as a Stipulation, if the parties didn't wish to amend their Stipulation they had the right to additional proceedings." He wouldn't want to send the message that when the Commission said "no" the party could get another evidentiary

Commissioner Marks moved to adopt the Order on rehearing with the change as discussed in paragraph 3. Commissioner Howe seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote 5-0 with none against.

11-00085-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE ACQUISITION BY EPCOR WATER (USA) INC. OF THE COMMON STOCK OF NEW MEXICO-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, INC. EPCOR WATER (USA) INC., NEW MEXICO-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, INC. AND AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting December 22, 2011

PETITIONERS.

11-00293-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION BY NEW MEXICO-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, INC., FOR AUTHORITY TO ISSUE UNSECURED LONG TERM PROMISSORY NOTES IN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT EXCEED $19,000,000.

(Margaret Caffey-Moquin) Order

Ms. Caffey-Moquin said both cases pertained to the proposed acquisition by New Mexico-American Water as they currently existed. The case involved the proposed transfer of the assets of the New MexicoAmerican Company to EPCOR and the parties were staffed with the Cities of Clovis and Edgewood as interveners in the main case. Edgewood did not take an active role in the financing case.

Ms. Caffey-Moquin said in the financing case, it was a $19 million aggregate principal amount for refinancing and the proceeds would be applied to repay New Mexico-American's existing long-term to release them from the debt owed to American Capital Water Corporation. The current debt structure was two unsecured promissory notes including an outstanding $5 million note due in December and a $14 million note due in October, 2037.

Ms. Caffey-Moquin said the HE found that the re-financing was consistent with the requirements of the PUA and approval of the refinancing would free money for a lawful purpose; to refund the existing longterm debt.

On the asset transfer case the Commission considers four key factors to determine if public interest was met. The RD found that public interest was satisfied and approval of the transaction would be in public interest.

Ms. Caffey-Moquin pointed out no parties suggested that quality of service would be diminished in any way by the proposed transaction and EPCOR appeared to be well qualified and financially sound. The HE found the transaction would have little or no effect on customers.

Ms. Caffey-Moquin recommended the Commission adopt both RD's. She had prepared a simple for each of the separate dockets.

Commissioner Howe said when the Commission discussed the order their sense was that it was a good thing. He had raised one concern that the order would not in any way box the Commission in if a company tried to acquire one of the state's major utilities. He asked Ms. Caffey-Moquin if she could assure that.

Ms. Caffey-Moquin said if the Commission gave her permission to revise the draft order in the asset transfer case to establish that it was not precedential with regard to other cases, she would be pleased to insert that language.

Commissioner Howe said if she used Commissioner Marks's language he would feel more comfortable.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting December 22, 2011 Page4

Ms. Caffey-Moquin said she would be glad to do that and would put it between the existing paragraphs b and c to say "this Final Order is of no precedential value or had no precedential effect on other utility transfers."

Chair Lyons asked when transferring the debt, if savings would be passed on to customers on the refinancing.

Ms. Caffey-Moquin said the refinancing would simply replace the creditor in the structured debt and have no effect on the capital structure of the company. She wasn't certain about the rate.

Mr. Tom Olson for New Mexico-American said the order was structured with a commitment from EPCOR to hold New Mexico-American harmless in any increase in the cost of the refinancing and to through any savings. He said the interest period wasn't known and would be determined closer to the hearing.

Ms. Caffey-Moquin said she corroborated that and it was one of the specific conditions in the RD.

Commissioner Marks moved for approval of the two separate orders with the minor change ensure a precedent wasn't set. Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar seconded the motion and it uasseu

by unanimous (5-0) voice vote with none voting against. So Ordered.

11-00265-UT IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO'S RENEWABLE ENERGY PORTFOLIO PROCUREMENT PLAN FOR 2012. (Bob Parker) Order

Chairman Lyons said they would start with two people who would like to comment on the case.

Mr. Allan Oliver said he was the CEO of the New Mexico Green Chamber of Commerce. He offer comments on behalf of his members who were in every corner of the state, Taos, Santa Fe, Cruces and membership in Alamogordo, Gallup and Albuquerque.

Mr. Oliver said his members strongly supported the growth of renewal energy in the state and wanted to make some points on PNM's renewable energy plan. They asked that the Commission vote in favor of the four different points:

First, he had been the Cabinet Secretary for Economic Development and the Deputy Secretary for Economic Development and generally incentives were done over a long period and in a predictable This was a very important source of growth for the state (over the last 10 years it was 50 %) and an important place for job creation. He asked that the incentive program be predictable and over a longer period of time.

Mr. Oliver said secondly they asked the Commission to recognize and give full consideration to generation cost that was avoided by renewable energy. That made things more predictable to the

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting December 22, 2011 5

Chamber of Commerce businesses and renewable energy projects should be credited for those benefits.

Mr. Oliver said third, they would ask that PNM be required to purchase a renewable energy credits bundle with their associated energy. The bundled RECs would be the best way to create more jobs for New Mexicans because it required renewable energy installations throughout the state.

Mr. Oliver said they would ask for transparency. PNM should be required to use the current information available and be transparent in their calculations. The reason again was for the green businesses predictability to grow and understand what the calculations would be in the future.

Mr. Oliver said he wanted to underline the incredible job potential that renewable energy holds for the state and said what was unique about renewable energy and solar energy in particular, was that it wasn't just an urban means of growing jobs but very much a rural opportunity.

He said the Green Chambe-r of Commerce did a study with Los Alamos National Labs and predicted if their potential was met in terms of renewable energy they would be looking at over 60,000 more jobs in the state.

Mr. Oliver said their business members who had been surveyed and people outside of the membership, overwhelmingly supported renewable energy and understood the trade off to pay more would create jobs and greater revenue for the cities, counties and the state. They wanted to see more of this.

He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. He introduced the Secretary for the New Mexico Green Chamber of Corrmerce, Kim Shanahan who was also the head of the Santa Fe Homebuilders Association.

Mr. Shanahan said he was a builder in Santa Fe for 25 years and in 2008 became the Executive Secretary for the Santa Fe Homebuilders Association. He had to lay off all of his employees because of the industry crisis and told about an employee in his mid 30s who went back to the community college to get an associate's degree to become a part of the green industry.

Mr. Shanahan said his perspective was about what the Commissioners were as promise keepers. He said every community college was moving into green programs and people were taking the courses and he believed every job connected to the home building industry would be a green job if it wasn't already. He said the renewable energy credit was part of it and was critical.

He asked the Commission to keep their promise to the citizens of New Mexico and to the people counting on the industry to survive and thrive.

Ms. Lora Lucero thanked Commissioner Hall for returning her call. She shared that she was speaking as a mother and grandmother. She supported solar energy and as a state they needed to create these kinds of jobs and hoped that the Commission would support solar energy as well.

Mr. Parker said Marc Martinez was there to help answer questions and also available was Lee Huffman. The Commission had before them a proposed order that would approve PNM's plan as modified

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting December 22, 2011 Page6

to have the company recalculate the RCT using the 2012 rates and sales projections. It would order PNM to use the extra funds ($850,000) to purchase renewables at the lowest cost while complying with the diversity requirements; it would deny for lack of proof of reasonableness, PNM's request to create a regulatory asset for the cost of upgrading its billing system; and require PNM to submit with its 2013 plan, a proposal to acquire an existing or newly built wind farm in New Mexico.

Commissioner Marks had questions but would propose an alternative. He prepared bullet points and passed them to the Commissioners. He said Mr. Parker had pretty much adopted the HE recommendation. He asked what the HE did about the customer solar incentive programs.

Commissioner Marks said Mr. Huffman clearly rejected going to tranches based on time and noted that Mr. Huffman said they would stay with tranches based on capacity. Commissioner Marks asked if the Commission adopted the order and Mr. Huffman's RD, if they would extend all of the tranches down to zero. He said the order didn't say.

Mr. Parker understood that when a particular tranche was filled there was a capacity limit and would remain open and some of the low power, smaller ones were not filled.

Commissioner Marks asked where it said that in the Order. Mr. Parker replied it was the PNM plan on page 13 of the RD.

Mr. Martinez read from the RD that "PNM proposes to continue to accept applications for these systems after the existing SIP tranches become full, reducing the REC price by one cent per kilowatt hour from the last tranche price and using the same capacity amounts step in the current program."

He read the steps. He read "this interim program would stay in effect for six months after it begins or until the Commission had issued an order on PNM's SIP continuation proposal for systems of this size or whichever was sooner."

Commissioner Marks said F1NM had interim proposal for the 0 to 10 KW and the 1 0KW to the 100 KW tranche for program segment to create more tranches; each one a penny less, as needed for the next six months. He said if the next six months it went from the smallest program, 7 cents and then to 6 cents, then if used up would go to a five cent tranche; and if the application came in it would go to a 4 cent etc. until six months. He said and the same for the 10-100.

He said the RD (page 36) talked about the HE Findings and Recommendations and Mr. Huffman discussed PNM's solution and approved the interim for the under 100 KW systems.

Commissioner Marks asked what would be done for the over 100 KW. Mr. Huffman replied the answer was on page 39.

Commissioner Marks said PNM proposed to offer people 2 cents a REC based on their market price. He said PNM's testimony was that the market price for RECs was 3 ½ cents. He asked if there was reconciliation for that and where the $20 and two cents came from.


Mr. Huffman said that figure was based on the lowest bid PNM was accepting.

Commissioner Marks asked where that testimony was; he hadn't seen anything about low bids. He would come back to his proposal in the alternative.

'"---:-sioner Howes:::::·: ·=~==:-'. Chamber Of C:'."'.'".":~:: ::1•_· they want a: ,· _ -~, ,· •~•jam and he was in favor of that. He asked \'.r. Parker for confirmation that the Commission could do that.

tv1r. Parker said his understanding was the statute required fi!ing every July 1 and for the Commission to look at the plan for the next year.

Commissioner Marks asked if a program couldn't last longer than a year.

Mr. Parker thought Com miss cner rlcwe said that they had ;he plans filed every two years. He confirmed that the Commission (;ouid approve a two-year prograt'Ti in the plan.

Commissioner Howe asked iv1r. Ober from the Green Chamber of Commerce if he was aware there was a notice of proposal the Comm1ss1on was making and if Mr. Oiiver planned to provide comments.

Mr. Oliver said they came in from a shared business perspective but were aware of that. He said they planned to provide public comments to that plan.

Comrrnssioner Howe urged that they provide comments. Their voice on that would be useful. Mr. Oiiver also said they wanted to see Pr·~M required to purct-,ase bundied RECs. He asked if that issue was in f,-.111i 0f ;:,:;; 3upreme Court.

r,M. Parker said it was. !n PNivi s 2011 plan the Commission reiected the proposal to purchase unbundled REC's. The Commission said they thought it was a legal way to satisfy the RPS, and preferred PNM get a bundle with energy. That had been appealed.

Chair Lyons asked Mr. Parker on the REC's if he had an indication when that would be before the Supreme Court and what they r:1,gn: do

Mr. Parker said the appeliat:? briefs were due January 13 and rie would have a couple of months. He thought it would be at least six months before the Commission knows what the Court wouid do.

Mr. Parker said in the 2012 case the Commission let PNM buy unbundled RECs but were for solar and hydro. He said it was incorrect that the Commission had said unbundled RECs were not good and in fact the Commission allowed that this year. That was not allowed the previous year because the plan was unbalanced.

Commissioner Marks added the RECs were expiring and were un\ieiy to result in additional investment in renevvable energy. He said the Commission never said there was not a legal right to do that but it was like vvhe1 the Commission rejected some PPAs.


I

Commissioner Hall said he understood that PNM wanted to buy their requirements all in RECs Commission said they would rather them explore the possibility of buying real energy. He said they didn't tell PNM they couldn't.

Mr. Parker said the exact language was "they should use their best efforts to procure bundled with the energy."

Chair Lyons said the first page in the memorandum stated the Commission should not adopt Mr. Huffman's RD because they didn't want to be tied to the decision of the proper way to calculate the RCT. He said there was a rule making process for the proper use of RECs and the Commission needs to sure the Supreme Court didn't come back against them really hard.

Mr. Parker said the RD took a hard position on the proper use of RECs and how to calculate the He said those issues were the open rule making and the Commission shouldn't tie into that and was why they were not adopting the HE's discussion.

Chair Lyons agreed. He thought they might lose and was why he wanted to modify the RD. He mentioned the language he wanted inserted after item one, on page one of the Order, after "Commission."

Mr. Parker said it was confusing. The Commission adopts the HE statement of the case which was the discussion. He confirmed that Chairman Lyons wanted it clear that the RCT or the RECs etc. were not being adopted.

Chair Lyons said he liked to stay out of court and was concerned about the case going through. He wouldn't want to make the Court mad and come down hard on the Commission and this helped.

Mr. Parker said it did. The Commission accepted what was complained about the previous year and that proved the Commission's policy was not to always disallow RECs. He said if the Commission this it would say that the Commission did approve RECs in the right situation.

Commissioner Marks asked if the case would be in the record for the Supreme Court. Mr. Parker replied he thought the Commission could do that.

Commissioner Marks thought the Supreme Court had to be what was in the record at the time.

Mr. Huffman said there was a PNM appeal 20 years ago that had three related cases. He had handled the appeal on the settlement. A third case, a rate case came out of it. The argument to the Supreme that relied on an Illinois Supreme Court decision was that when the Commission issued a Final Order related to other cases, the Court could take judicial notice of the related Final Order. The Court agreed. If a party requests judicial notice of a related Commission Final Order a strong precedent was set that request would be granted.

Commissioner Marks said the Commission wouldn't want PNM to say that even the Commission's own HE didn't agree with them. He said the Commission was right when they said they had the ability to approve, modify or reject the plan. He said Mr. Huffman said they didn't have the right to reject the


transaction.

Commissioner Marks said that means they didn't have the right to reject anything and he didn't support that. The legislature gave the Commission the job to determine what plans were in the best public interest.

rvir. Parker said that was wr1y they 'Nere not adopting the RD.

-_:, __ . :_sioner Marks s. ,_· ' · . ~,,Tmission agree,' iv':" '' 1 "man on the R"'"<"''- ""'-, · .. ould be weakening :hemselves not jJst with Supreme Court but v.;:th the public.

Chair Lyons disagreed and said the Supreme Court wouldn't look at what was in the best public interest; they would look at the legality. He thought they were on shaky ground with the Supreme Court and wanted this in so they wouldn't :1ammer too hard.

He thought the Commiss:m' had used the RECs properly and there was a good chance of losing the case.

Commissioner Marks disagreed. He said the Commission had a good chance of winning the case because the law gives the Commission the ability to approve, reject or modify renewable procurement plan. He couldn't see how putting a rnea culpa in the order made the Supreme Court less likely to overturn the previous order; it makes them more likely.

~. :a·r · . ans said it wou· ': ,, : . ·~ 'c;;,m less likely, , -- - '·::: •'- - --·uoreme Court "' - , ___ .. --ct on the

Commissioner Hall said the Com'.17:ssion did not tell Pr✓ M not to use RECs but simpiy asked them to find an alternative and the Commission ,Jid not overstep their authority.

Mr. Parker said PNM did come back with a plan to buy some energy.

Commissioner Marks said over the last four years; PNM put their 01riginal wind plant in and didn't have an RPS and banked the RECs fJr four years; the Kit Carson co-op case RPS didn't start until 2015; PNM put solar in iast year and this year ard vvant to bank the RE Cs for four years. In that circumstance the law said it's a good thing; it encoura;es eariy adoption and peop!e to do more than they need sooner and giving four years credit rewa·ds them.

Commissioner Marks said that was a different scenario than what PNM brought to the Commission earlier this year wanting to make paper compliance with RECs that would expire anyway. He thought the legislature wants to effectuate the purpose of the Renewable Energy Act, not just rubber stamp anything technically legal.

Commissioner Marks said PNM was not harmed by the Order; it didn't cost the shareholders a dime because the Commission said they couldn't use the RECs. The Comrr:ission ust took away PNM's decision about which procurement to make. He said there was a reason the Cornrrlss oners were elected to represent the public interest and not just do what the utilities say.


Chair Lyons asked who filed at the Supreme Court.

Mr. Parker said first was NMIEC, joined by PNM and then SPS who were the only ones who lost

" .. HII ··~~-~ ... ,,, th· ,. ,; ______ , th d'd'tI-------- .. LommIssIoner a saIc 0r'0 c,cn I Iose any mg oner man a sa,e; ey I n ose inur1ey.

Mr. ParKer said the coops were not a party however Mr. Martinez thought they wouid file a "friend of the court" brief.

Chair Lyons said that would cost money and it would probably work against the Commission.

Mr. Parker said the Supreme Court allowed people who ,,.-eren·t parties to file briefs sometimes if that he!ped the Court make a decis;Jn.

ConYnissioner Hall couldn't see how the PRC could be heid responsible when PNM and SPS assumed they cou!d do what they pleased and the Commission decided they needed to do different!y. The Commission's job was to make the decision if the parties could or not and SPS and PNM jumped the gun because they thought they had the sale made.

Commissioner Marks said it was like if First Solar and PNM had a 44 megawatt project and the ~ . . I ed ' " ' " . d F' t S I ' '' " . . . " ' · " th commiss:on on y approv nali O' tna: an irs oar sueo ne ""omm1ss1on saying mey :os1 aH e money iiit;y wuuiu i,ave made.

Chair Lyons said he wou!d, 't say they couldn't change their program. He said the Commission definitely had the final say and he wanted to keep that, but they should be softer.

Mr. Parker asked Chairman Lyons for his language. Chairman Lyons responded with the verbiage he wanted inserted after "Commission as was the discussion ... " in the order. He said the RCT calculation was addressed on page 2 Item 9 bu1 didn't require a particular method of determining that.

Chai• Lyons said Commissioner Marks had more changes

Comrnissioner Marks said if the maJOrity of the Commission was interested, he wou!d suggest this be brought back on Wednesday for final action with a fully drafted order.

Commissioner Marks said tt1e number one concern wasn't the RE Cs or the RCT or what Mr. Oliver, Ms. Lucero and others were there for. It had occurred to him that PNM should have been bringing a project this year, a contract to meet their RPS in 2013/14. The RPS was 10% retail sales and PNM was at about 6.5% and considerabiy short. Commissione~ Marks sa:d PNM was saying their hands were tied in 2012 and the RCT was too iow and there was no room. He said Mr. Huffman was now saying there was $900,000 of room.

Commissioner Marks referred to the chart on the second page from Ms. Bothwell's testimony; he


explained the chart of total costs and said the Commissioners could see by 2014 there was significant room by PNM's own calculations.

He said if the rate increase was put in that wasn't put in by PNM, the head room became bigger. Commission knew a project couldn't get in the ground running in six months and if PNM brought a program next July that was approved by the Commission a year from now, it wouldn't go in until 2015.

Commissioner Marks said it was clear that PNM's RFP got 18 bids with thirty 33 different bids for a wind PPA; 148 bids for a solar PPA; 31 bids for wind RECs; 9 bids for solar RECs; 7 bids for biomass/geothermal and 81 bids for turnkey. He said they should have selected the best projects the Commission know they had an RFP problem in 2012 but this was the project they want approved now.

Commissioner Marks said if approved PNM would start the groundbreaking and it would be up running in 2014; even better they could come with multiple projects and get diversity going. He said even if they couldn't do that PNM had an obligation to do the RPS. He said by not bringing the Commission a project PNM put the project back a year.

Commissioner Marks said they would be fighting over five or $10 million in 2014 and there wasn't a PPA. He asked if they would buy RECs or do more solar incentive programs to kill $10 million. The cost-effective was for PNM to take the best project from the RFP and use that as a basis to get from 6 to 10%.

Commissioner Marks proposed that the Commission reject the plan and approve things in the interim and ask PNM to come back in 45-60 days with an actual plan for 2014. He said there were other issues that would be solved by rejecting the plan; evidentiary issues, but the parties were stirred up. He said even if they used 2012 the 2012 numbers came in after the hearing and the parties were not buying into the actual numbers as well as some other numbers.

Commissioner Marks said there was an issue with $850-$900,000 of RCT space and no actual nrf"\• 0 "'

to spend it on. The Commission would be doing that again. He said they need to have PNM come with actual proposals for the Commission to approve or disapprove.

Commissioner Marks said solar was important but the most important thing was to follow the law and the law said there was a 10% RPS. The Commission should take some action to get into compliance with that. Commissioner Marks said if the Commission approves PNM's plan it was saying they would put that off for another year in addition to the two years it would take to build.

Chair Lyons asked Mr. Parker if it would be legal to do that; if the Commission had to adopt the plan whether the Commission modified or not.

Mr. Parker said the statute said the plan could be rejected if it was incomplete but if complete the Commission's options were to accept as it as was or modify it. He thought the Commission could not legally reject the plan.

Commissioner Howe asked if the fact that there wasn't a plan for the $900,000 head room made it


incomplete.

Mr. Parker replied that in his opinion it did not.

Chair Lyons said that Mr. Parker was saying the Commission should modify the plan rather than reject it.

Mr. Parker said the Commission would be on more solid ground to modify the plan, which was what the proposed order did. He said it didn't modify the plan in a way that Commissioner Marks likes.

Commissioner Howe asked if the Commission could order PNM to come back in 45 days with a specific plan for the $900,000 and accept the rest of the plan. He was told the Commission could do that.

Commissioner Marks asked if at the same time PNM could be ordered to come back with a specific plan to comply with the RPS in 2014.

Mr. Parker yes it was a matter of line drawing. He said last year PNM was asked to come back with a plan to buy actual wind; a few details weren't rejection.

Chair Lyons asked Commissioner Howe how he wanted to modify the order for the $874,000.

Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar said her stand on the issue was that the state legislature gave the Commission a job to comply with the renewable energy portfolio with all of the industries. It was okay for the Supreme Court to tell the Commission to look at the programs closer. She said that tells her that the New Mexico Supreme Court was allowing the Commissioners to look at each particular plan presented by industries and to focus on what could be allowable on the consensus of the Commissioners.

She said she didn't see the Supreme Court's rejection of a particular case as wrong; it was an""'"'''"' way for the PRC Commissioners to work on the renewable energy projects in New Mexico.

Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar said the Commission was moving in the right direction. If the Commission told PNM to return with the plan in 45 days that was the right thing to do and was the Commission's job and why they were elected.

She wants a good proposal and plans from PNM and said it was her observation that within the last 18 months PNM needs to do better job. She said other industries that were much smaller met the renewable energy portfolio standards. She was in a position where she would ask for a broader actual plan for 2012-2014 from PNM.

Commissioner Howe said to Commissioner Marks the 22 megawatt solar project was discussed in the RD of the HE it was quoted as an expensive project but the Commission said there were other benefits and it was therefore greatly accepted.

He asked the extent that project would contribute to the compression in the RCT seen now.


Commissioner Marks said the chart shows that the solar was the highest in 2011 and the second highest in 2012 and the customer becomes higher but was 82,000 megawatt hours versus 52,004 company owned.

Commissioner Howe asked if there was an idea where that would lie if done as a PPA rather than a rate based project.

Commissioner Marks said the Commission was told the levelized costs from last year were about $160 per megawatt hour.

Mr. Parker said it was in the record and most of the RCT was taken up by that and the wind contract.

Commissioner Howe asked if the Commission would want PNM to come back with a number rate based projects.

Commissioner Marks said according to Ms. Bothwell's testimony PNM got 194 PPA bids; 81 turnkeys (rate based. He said PNM needs to bring the Commission the best projects and their recommendations and alternatives and why they were selected and let the Commission decide what to approve. He said Commission had no idea what was good about the projects and were just told the average costs.

Commissioner Howe asked if it was ever suggested that PNM look at a leaseback of the 22 megawatt solar facility. He was told no. He asked if the PRC had the legal authority to require a utility to divest itself of assets.

Mr. Parker said the Commission could require PNM to explore that and come back with something next year. He said it seemed that Commissioner Marks wanted PNM to come back this year and the order said next year.

Commissioner Marks said he estimated the difference between a PPA and rate base to be $1.2 to .3 million a year on the RCT, looking at Ms. Bothwell's estimation of $184 megawatt hours for 2012. He recollected that it was 158-160 when it was levelized. The problem wasn't just that it was rate based but it was more expensive than PPA. PNM had explained that after twenty years it was free and the Commission accepted that.

Commissioner Marks said even with the status quo and what the Commission decided in the past, there appeared to be enough room under the RCT to have another project. The statute said the Commission could reject it if there wasn't enough information and the plan should include the cost procurement for any renewable energy resource in the next calendar year required to comply with the renewable portfolio standard.

He said it didn't say the cost for any new procurement to comply with the RPS in the next calendar year; it says the procurements. He said there was an RPS to 2013, 2014, 2015 and PNM did not provide the Commission with sufficient information about projects that meet the RPS in 2014.

Commissioner Marks said if the Commission takes the easy route and if the Commission pushed this to


July would be filed in July and maybe by next December there would be a plan and that would be operational in 2015. He said they would have lost a year and the Commission would have fallen short of what the public and the legislature wants.

Commissioner Howe agreed the Commission seemed to push decisions to the 11th hour and was a chronic problem. He asked Commissioner Marks on his proposed Order if he wanted PNM to come with a specific plan in 2013. He said it looked like PNM might have one and half million dollars in excess.

Commissioner Marks agreed. He asked for the total RTC by going from 2010 to 2012 and after some discussion about it said it could be assumed it was over $1 million.

He wants a plan to be in RPS compliance by 2014 and by 2013 would be even better. He was trying to accelerate this by 9 months. The RFPs had been done and PNM knew what the best bids were and this could be done in 2014 rather than 2015.

He said he was rejecting the plan as inadequate because PNM didn't tell the Commission how would get into RPS compliance. He wants a plan to get 10% RPS on the five or $6 million.

Commissioner Howe asked if the Commission could add to the order that PNM come back in 60 days with what they would do with the additional money.

Commissioner Marks said if that had the same effect that was fine. He said the fundamental problem with the 2012 plan was it needed procurements for 2013 or 2014 but had none and no one paid attention that it takes time to bring in a sizable project. He said if the Commission went with this as it was they would be stuck with REC purchases, etc.

Commissioner Marks said he didn't agree with everything that was done on the RCT but a lot of decisions made were liberal and very fair and reasonable. PNM had gone through this exercise three times doing big RFPs but had never proposed a project to the Commission based on an RFP. The Commission gets stuck with sole source/ bilateral deals because they were not doing this in a structured way.

Commissioner Howe said he heard from a number of people who went to the effort of putting in an and made it to a final list and that was the last they heard. He said that takes a lot of time and money to together a significant RFP.

He asked if the Commission could say they accept the existing programs as filed but wanted PNM back in 60 days with a plan for the other $5 million etc.

Commissioner Marks agreed he could live with that. He wanted to emphasize that PNM hit diversity but the first priority was to get the 10% RPS. He also wanted a specific plan to use the $900,000 through 2012 and for it to come back to the Commission.

Mr. Parker said that Mr. Huffman ordered PNM to submit a plan to use the extra $847,000.

Commissioner Marks said the parties were never able to litigate the plan or the $847,000.


Commissioner Howe asked if the large customer calculation included in the RCT was ever resolved.

Mr. Parker said PNM corrected an error in calculation. There were three alternatives to use the He asked since the Commission had not established a way to calculate the RCT, what if PNM said they couldn't do it because they were limited by the RCT.

Commissioner Marks said the Commission would say they want 2012; the one thing still in debate would be the capacity cost. He said there wasn't any disagreement with how Ms. Bothwell did the other avoided costs. The disagreement was on the capacity side. If the Commission said PNM should use own RTC based on 2012 rates and revenues and ask what they would do to come into compliance that would be a great starting place.

Mr. Parker said the ordering paragraph on the proposed order B told PNM to bring something back next year. He asked if that could be changed to say to come back in 60 days with specific procurements and alternatives to meet the RPS by 2014 or sooner if possible.

Commissioner Marks said it could include his bullet point about what went wrong with 2014 and why PNM was being ordered to come back with a plan.

Commissioner Howe asked if 60 days was too narrow or should there be another RFP.

Commissioner Marks hoped PNM would give them the best of the RFP that was done. He thought there had to be something decent there.

Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar said one other project was presented to the Commission that was an example of where the communication in the RFPs was difficult. She said small projects; especially on Indian land were the type of projects she thought should be on the scale of approving in the near

She wanted to send PNM a message to think about the smaller projects and how they could their decisions and what the Commissioners were seeking.

Commissioner Marks said on the solar under 100 K that the capacity determined tranches seemed to be working okay but hadn't hit the point where people were not doing projects because the REC was too small.

Commissioner Marks didn't like what Mr. Huffman did because there was too much concern of it terminated and things weren't left in the right place for over 100 K. He suggested "the tranches for everything smaller than 250 would keep running down to zero or until PNM came back with a plan the Commission accepted" be said instead.

Commissioner Marks proposed the Commission do something now or ask PNM to propose cannibalizing the biggest tranche to fund the smaller tranches. He showed PNM's website and said everything was on the last or next to the last step. He said one project could swallow a megawatt worth of RECs. He asked why not put the same RE Cs out and save the lesser cents for the smaller systems.


He proposed if the Commission extended tranches it would be at $.03-$.04 fairly quickly. It was a more than PNM proposed but was more consistent with what the Commission was doing rather than an abrupt change.

Chair Lyons asked where the diversification came from.

Commissioner Marks said PNM and the stakeholders brought the idea the previous year of segmenting the market into different sized systems then tranches. The Commission cut the trenches in half and changed a buy all sell all to a REC incentive and reduced the amount slightly.

Commissioner Howe asked if by doing that, the Commission was giving preapproval to exceed RTC.

Commissioner Marks said the Commission could propose that come back as a proposal.

Mr. Parker said the Commission couldn't give PNM approval to exceed the RTC; that was their limit.

Commissioner Marks said the Commission could give approval but could not order them.

Commissioner Howe agreed with Chairman Lyons that he couldn't visualize what the change would

Commissioner Marks said on the stuff that PNM said to keep extending tranches in the RD; they said they would exceed the RTD and after Mr. Huffman recalculates the RCT. Commissioner Marks would rather say if under six months to let it roll to the next plan. He said it becomes easier to extend because they were talking about 5 cent RE Cs now versus the 10 and 15 sent RE Cs a year ago and all of the new business was cheaper than the old.

Commissioner Howe said PNM was being asked to come back in 60 days. He asked if they could be asked to come back with what the impact was to do that.

Mr. Huffman said in his RD, PNM had filed a notification and under the Commission's order from earlier in the year PNM had 45 days and was required to come in with a proposal of what would happen next. The Commission now had in front of them, in terms of PNM's revised interim proposal, that they didn't see this coming up this quickly. PNM said it was filling up faster than expected in the rebuttal in October and thought it would fill up in the near future.

He said it was in the proposed order to file this notification and PNM was required by January to make a filing though not as broad as what the Commission was discussing. He said the commission could address that point in the final order and require PNM to file what the Commission wanted and within the desired time frame.

Commissioner Marks said Mr. Huffman recommended this run for six months and there was enough money to do that.


Mr. Huffman said that was correct. He said PNM said that was what they requested and when PNM asked for an RTC variance had calculated that extending this would cause the RCT to exceed the legal limit so they asked for variance.

He said ruling against PM·is request and using new current rates combined with projections of 2012 sa!es had e1iminated the need for the RCT variance.

He said he wasn't sure vvhEn the !ast one would fill but P1~r1i said this should be ai!owed to continue from six months to either the Comm1ss1on's final order (July 1) or the date that it fills, which cou!d be a few months later.

Commissioner Marks said HCT for 2012 and the 5 cent was worth $87,000 a year. He thought if tranches were extended they were talking about $250,000 and it wasn't going to consume the $850,000.

Comm,ssioner Howe askec! if ail the goals wouldn't be accornpiished by asking PNM to continue the plan until they come back in SO cays or there's a final order

Mr. Parker confirmed that the Commission wanted to approve the plan but have PNM come back to brief the Commission on what they had, the ...

Commissioner Marks said it was not briefing but a request of approval. He said the DG could be part of what PNM plans to do with the $850,000. He would have PNM propose to the Commission whether they cou!d repropose the remaining .:ucget from the 1 megawatt segment to the 100 megawatt segment and as part of the order when the last F~EC change, put the public or notice that the 1 MW segrnent could be

Chair Lyons said he wanted to know what their response would be. They might have something in the works.

Commissioner Marks said if so it would probably be grandfathered in but if they start in January they wouldn't have to.

Commissioner Howe proposed the Commission adopt Mr. Parker's order as modified under Section D, that PNM come back in 60 days with a specific p!an with specific procurements to meet the RPS compliance by 2014 or sooner if possible and a specific plan for the amount of remaining RCT in 2012. Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar seconded the motion.

Mr. Parker said he would acid Chairman Lyons language.

Commissioner Marks asked that the Chairman's language be read. He wouldn't support language that weakened the Commission's discussion.

Commissioner Marks read Chairman Lyons proposal. He said that it stated the Commission would adopt Mr. Huffman·s discussion. He couldn·t adopt ·what Mr. Huffman said and read "as such they carry a unique role and vision by the le~Iislature casting the legitimacy and doubt because they were about to


expire could detract from the functioning of New Mexico's renewable market."

Commissioner Marks said Mr. Huffman was saying that the Commission made a mistake in the order and he didn't agree. He said if the Supreme Court wants to correct the Commission they would. He thought the Commission should keep their case at the Supreme Court and support what they said before.

Commissioner Marks moved to strip the Chairman's language in the previous motion so the Commission was not equivoc:ating on the previous position that sometimes it was appropriate to disfavor a utility using an expiring REC.

He asked to keep the Order the Commission previously had.

Commissioner Hall seconded the motion. He said he didn't believe the Commission made a mistake on the order the Commission previously issued.

Commissioner Howe asked Mr. Parker how the Supreme Court case was not moot given that PNM came back and did something. He asked if anyone was damaged.

Mr. Parker said that would be one of his arguments when the time came that the case was moot. He said no more or less money was spent and he would try to get rid of it on those grounds before reaching the merits. As far as he knew there was no stay on their order and it was being carried out.

Chairman Lyons clarified the motion was to modify the order stated by Commissioner Howe.

A discussion ensued on whether the motion was being amended or the order was being amended.

Chairman Lyons continued with the clarification that the motion on the floor was to adopt the previous motion by Commissioner Howe that modified the order by Commissioner Marks' modifications and not by Chairman Lyons modifications.

Commissioner Marks said he had hoped the Commission would vote on Chairman Lyons' amendment and then vote on the main motion with that language either in or out.

Chair Lyons withdrew his amendment.

Mr. Parker repeated the motion in the ordering paragraph B would be changed to require PNM to come in within 60 days with specific procurements aimed at meeting the RPS in 2014 or sooner if possible and specific plans for using the amount of remaining headroom under the RCT.

Commissioner Marks added and that the under 100 KW stays in effect until there was a Final Order on the new case.

Commissioner Howe asked if this was a preliminary order.

Mr. Parker said this would be a final order as amended by the Commission.


Commissioner Marks wanted PNM to propose an alternative to what was proposed thus far, which would continue to tranches in the over 100 KW and using the 1 megawatt. PNM would be asked to put alternatives in front of the Commission.

Commissioner Howe said his intention was to accept the plan as now, it would continue the program until ...

Commissioner Marks said it would continue for six months from today or another date that might be shorter.

Mr. Parker explained it wouldn't let it be shorter than six months but it might've been because PNM had to come back in January ...

Commissioner Marks said they could end up with a gap. He said the six months should run from ...

Commissioner Howe said his intention was PNM come back in 60 days with their plan on the small DG tranches and analysis of what the impact would be to the RCT.

Commissioner Marks askecl if they could include an alternative plan on the 100-900 KW tranches. Commissioner Howe replied it would have to include that anyway.

Commissioner Marks said he would get proposals for all of the levels of tranches.

Mr. Martinez confirmed the Commissioners were talking about for all tranches for all system sizes and was told yes.

Mr. Parker repeated that PNM would come back in 60 days with specific procurements to meet the RPS and 2014 or sooner if possible and a specific plan for using headroom under the RTC, which includes alternate proposals for all the tranches for the DG.

Commissioner Marks said r1e wanted to put "and includes the alternative of eliminating the 1 megawatt system size category and using the budget to fund the other tranches."

Commissioner Howe thought it sounded like the Commission was directing PNM. He asked if the Commissioners agreed they were not asking PNM to eliminate but just proposing alternatives.

Chair Lyons asked to omit the last line; he thought a// categories would be sufficient.

Commissioner Marks if they want to eliminate the 1 MW they would be stuck with a grandfather issue and waste rate payer money as they did a year ago. He said people need to be given notice that it might go away and avoid the grandfather problem.

Commissioner Howe found the modification acceptable as long as the Commission was not directing PNM.


Commissioner Hall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote 5-0 with none against. So Ordered.

[Break] At this time the steff came in to sing Christmas Carols for the Commission

7. COMMUNICATIONS lliiTH ACTiNG GENERAL COUNSEL; BOB PARKER

There were no communicallions with Acting General Counsel.

8. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHIEF OF STAFF, JOHNNY MONTOYA

There were no communica':ions with Chief of Staff

9. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSIONERS

Commissioner Marks would give a full report when Mr. Carrara was present but said he and Mr. Carrara were at the West Connect meeting on FERG 1000 the previous day with Commissioner Tarpe from Colorado and Rebecca Wagner from Nevada, both Republicans. He pitched that the states needed to have a seat at the table while they deveioped cost allocation methods that utilities would propose to FERC and ::~:.::; ·:::.:::.: :::ceptive.

Comm:ssioner Marks would do a communication because he thought it prudent for the Commission to open a docket. He suggested it be called "In the matter of the implementation of FERC 1000 by West Connect." He said interested parties could be invited to comment on what was being done by the Commission.

Commissioner Marks said the Commission would be better off with a formal basis for taking positions with the other states when goin] to West Connect to ask to be part of their governance. The Commission shouid be more formal and er,tertan ihat and then come :o an offlcjal division decision rather than making a decision on what sounds good.

He thought there was consensus that PNM and EPE were viewing things similarly to what the Commission did. He said everyone was going in the same direction but he wanted to formalize it.

Chairman Lyons asked if h1~ proposed adoption to enter the West Connect, not FERC 1000.

Commissioner Marks said it would be cailed on the implementation of ;::ERC 1000. He said the Commission wou d rnake their decision about getting involved with Wesi Connect m the docket; they would open an inquiry. aHow people to say their piece and make a decision

Chairman Lyons asked if that wasn't two distinct things.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Op,en Meeting December 22, 2011

Commissioner Marks explained that FERG 1000 required regional planning and cost allocation and did not specify the regions. He said there were permutations that could occur in the West that could be all of the West, but didn't appear to be happening.

Evervone thought the best .vav to ao this was three or four rea,onal groups. He said Vvest Connect, I ~ V

the Commission was currently ir, included Colorado, Nev, rviexico. t\rizona and Nevada and some of California The Northern Tier was Wyoming, Idaho, some of Oregon. Utah, Washington and some of Colorado and they had been doing this for five years. The Columbia grid was Oregon and Washington and California.

Commissioner Marks said the industry was coalescing around the medium size regions and there were even smaller sub regions within West Connect. Other state commissioners that do conference calls liked the idea of Jsing the bigger groJps but not the whole \/Vest and the utility industry and the transition owners !iked tile idea of using West Co1nect

Comm ssioner Marks said the utiiities that were a part of West Connect started to pull together in the last couple of months on how to come up with the compliance filing for FERC 1000 and include developing a more formal organization and the cost allocation.

He said if FERC accepted that West Connect would do cost allocation for individual projects, there would be a question if states would participate in West Connect in that level. That would be the purpose of . . . . . f II d. .. . . f h th .. .. . Id rt· . . . . . . . " t d ·~:: ~--··::·: ·o orma y is- ·--·~::~~--·,on o w e er"'~·.-. ","~"•M wou pa 1c1pate 1n vvest Gonnec an (-::::,:::::::::::::at the table.

Chairman Lyons said as a rnember of the Southwest Power Pool the seven states rea1!y v,orked well. He thought Commissioner Marks was nght to let the whole Commission take a look at it.

Commissioner Marks this would be SWPP on a smaller scale and the idea would be the west would start to act more like that.

Commissioner Howe said ~,VVPP cost allocation wouldn't necessarily work for FERC either and whatever the Commission did shoJld include SPS.

Commissioner Marks said the Con1mission currently had a seat at SWPP (Chairman Lyons) so the Commission was already participating and SPS would be part of the West Connect.

Commissioner Howe asked, if the Commission opened the docket, what should be done about FERC 1000. There should be consideration of SPS.

Commissioner rv1arks said that was a g~eat idea.

Mr. Stevenson said he was standing in for rv1r. Ca~rara and they had talked about this. Staff wanted to lend their suppo1 and he suggested it be caHed something simple like ''In the matter of an inquiry into FERG 1000'' and everything be put in and then have specific actions as necessary.


He said staff was having a little trouble getting the kind of information from the utilities they might get if they had a docketed proceeding. Staff would keep the commissioners posted on all of it as it went forward. Some Commissioners were able to meet with Tri-State the previous day and were also very concerned about that. He would make sure that Tri-State was included in the service along with the utilities when they went forward.

Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar thanked Commissioner Marks for leading the efforts and for his participation in West Connect. She looked forward to working with Mr. Stevenson and believed that Commissioner Howe also had an interest. She said they had a good group going although she had some complications calling in for the last meeting on Tuesday.

10. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to NMSA 1978 §10-15-1. H (3) to discuss pending litigation.

Commissioner Marks moved to go into Executive Session to discuss a pending litigation matter. Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous roll call vote with Commissioners Be,centi-Aguilar, Hall, Howe, Lyons and Marks voting in the affirmative and none voting against.

The Commission went into executive session at 12:08 p.m.

The Commission came out of executive session at 12:35 p.m.

Commissioner Howe moved to go back into Open Session. Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote.

Chairman Lyons announced to the public that during the closed session no actions were taken and the only matter discussed was the pending litigation matter.

11. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Marks moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote. 5-0

The meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m.


ATTEST:

JAS N A. MARKS, COMMISSIONER

BEN L.

I 1l,,,,.___

OMMISSIONER


NEW :MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

OPEN MEETING

SIGN-IN SHEET

DA TE: I,,"'/ A~,/ p( I}// ) )

Name

Thank you for attending this meeting.

EXHIBIT 1 PRC 12/2Zl11

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

REGULAR OPEN Thursday, December 22, 2011

9:30 A.M. PERA Building, 4th Floor Hearing Room

1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, NM 87501

AGENDA

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. INTRODUCTIONS

3. MISCELLANEOUS ANNOUNCEMENTS

• Recognition of t:he Employee of the Month of November

4. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

6. CONSENT ACTION ITEMS

A. Transportation Division Cases 11-00450-TR-M IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF Bob Parker IT'S MOVING DAY, LLC TO PROVIDE HOUSEHOLD GOODS

CARRIER SERVICE AND FOR TEMPORRY AUTHORITY.

7. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS

A. Utility Division Cases 11-00265-UT IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Bob Parker NEW MEXICO'S RENEWABLE ENERGY PORTFOLIO

PROCUREMENT PLAN FOR 2012.

Regular Open Meeting Agenda Thursday, December 22, 2011 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT 2

PRC 12/21J11

10-00266-UT APPLICATION OF EL PASO ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR APPROVAL Margaret Caffey-Moquin TO RECOVER REGULATORY DISINCENTIVES AND INCENTIVES

ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

Order

11-00085-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE ACQUISITION BY EPCORWATER (USA) Margaret Caffey-Moquin INC. OF THE COMMON STOCK OF NEW MEXICO -AMERICAN

WATER COMPANY, INC.

EPCOR WATER (USA) INC., NEW MEXICO-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, INC. AND AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC. PETITIONERS.

11-00293-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION BY NEW MEXICO-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, INC., FOR AUTHORITY TO ISSUE UNSECURED LONG TERM PROMISSORY NOTES IN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $19,000,000.

Order

7. COMMUNICATIONS WITH ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, BOB PARKER

8. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHIEF OF STAFF, JOHNNY MONTOYA

9. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSIONERS

10. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

Pursuant to NMSA 1978 §10-15-1.H(J) to discuss pending litigation:

11. ADJOURNMENT

The Commission will make reasonable efforts to post the agenda on the Commission's website 36 hours before the open meeting but thi! inability to do so within the 36 hours prior will not require the Commission to delay the meeting or to refrain from taking action on any agenda item on which it otherwise could act.

At any time during the Open !Meeting the Commission may close the meeting to the public to discuss matters not subject to the NeW' Mexico Open Meetings Act. The Commission may revise the order of the agenda items considered at thit; Open Meeting.

Regular Open Meeting Agenda Thursday, December 22, 2011 Page 2 of 3

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING SPECIAL ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING SHOULD CONTACT THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OF THE COMMISSION (827-4084) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE OPEN MEETING.

Regular Open Meeting Agenda Thursday, December 22, 2011 Page 3 of 3

minutes of the regular open meeting new mexico …nmprc.state.nm.us/docs/older docs/12-22-11 om...

Documents