PNM CAUGHT A BREAK FROM REGULATORS WHILE IT SENT OUT AN AVERAGE 22,000 DISCONNECT NOTICES PER MONTH

Dear Friend, 

In 2022 PNM sent out an average of 22,000 disconnect notices per month. Each one of those notices constitutes a family emergency, putting mothers, fathers and grandparents under incredible strain as they scramble to figure out how to keep the lights on, choosing between energy for light, heat, cooling and refrigeration and food or medicine for the family. The long term impacts of energy insecurity include poor health and educational deficits, and can lead to a downward spiral of financial insecurity and homelessness. We refer back once again to this excellent 2022 Searchlight NM article that illustrates the heartbreaking consequences of utility policy for low income families in New Mexico, especially children.

New Energy Economy's fight to hold PNM accountable is not just about climate, it is also about economic justice for captive utility customers that depend on state regulators to protect their rights from a private corporation that cares only about profit. That is why on Friday New Energy Economy filed a Joint Brief in Chief at the NM Supreme Court with the New Mexico Department of Justice, the County of Bernalillo and the Abq-Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority in our appeal of the Public Regulation Commission (PRC)'s Final Order in Case No. 22-00270-UT, the 2022 PNM Rate Case, which failed to require that PNM pays the price for imprudent decisions that have harmed, and continue to harm, all of us.

Our Joint Brief challenges the PRC's decisions to:

1. Allow PNM to continue to collect $153 million in imprudent costs related to its investments to extend the life of the coal fired Four Corners Power Plant. The Hearing Examiner determined that ratepayers suffered $238 million in financial harm as a consequence of that poor decision, but inexplicably and illegally recommended that only $85 million be disallowed from rates. PNM continues to collect the remainder, along with a guaranteed Return on Equity premium on every dollar, from its customers.

2. To allow PNM to collect $45M from ratepayers for imprudent leases of power from the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. A prior PRC already determined those lease purchases to be imprudent, but this PRC allowed the company to charge ratepayers for the purchase price regardless, even after the leases were already sold.

3. To put off enforcement of a prior PRC requirement that PNM quantify shareholders responsibility for the future decommissioning costs related to those imprudent leases in this Case, a potentially enormous risk for ratepayers when the nuclear plant finally closes. Decommissioning (closing) a nuclear power plant and dealing with the radioactive waste is a hugely expensive endeavor that ratepayers are now on the hook to pay for because of PNM's imprudent nuclear investment!

4. To allow PNM to charge customers for 100% of the costs and salaries of the PNM Board of Directors, whose first and only required fiduciary duty is to increase profits for shareholders.

Because utility ratepayers are captive customers, a utility’s sole motivation to act prudently arises from the prospect that costs related to imprudent decisions may be disallowed from rates. In rewarding PNM's imprudent decisions, allowing company executives and shareholders to earn extra profit by investing hundreds of millions in expensive coal and nuclear power when there were cheaper renewable options, the PRC sends a signal that the utility can continue to act in its own interests, raising energy costs for New Mexicans and slowing the energy transition without fear of meaningful consequences. 

PNM's rate application sought to increase electricity rates by 9.65% for the average customer, and raise its guaranteed Return on Equity premium to 10.25%. We successfully argued for the finding that PNM's investments in the Four Corners Power Plant were imprudent, and that PNM's arguments for raising its Return on Equity had no merit. These were significant findings that ultimately resulted in a 8% reduction in rates instead of the increase PNM sought, and a reduction of the Return on Equity to 9.26%.

However, that hard fought victory was incomplete. PNM's imprudently acquired profits come directly out of the pockets of New Mexican families, especially the poor who bear the highest energy burden and live in the least energy efficient buildings. That transfer of ill-gotten wealth moves from the paycheck of every PNM customer, who has no choice in their energy provider, directly into the pockets of wealthy PNM board members, executives and Wall Street investors.

When utilities fail to follow the rules they get a slap on the wrist, while low-income families face the very real threat of eviction. Utilities must be held accountable so they don’t keep doing the same thing.

We trust that the New Mexico Supreme Court Justices will uphold the law, enjoining the Commission to respect the precedent that the Court themselves laid out in PNM v. PRC, 2019-NMSC-012, ¶ 42 - “the proper remedy for a utility’s imprudence should equal the amount of the unreasonable investment in order to hold ratepayers harmless from any amount imprudently invested.”

 

AND FINALLY, WE WANT TO RECOMMEND THIS OP-ED
PRINTED IN THE SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN LAST WEEK

MY VIEW ALEJANDRÍA LYONS
Reject false solutions to fossil fuel crisis

By Alejandría Lyons Sep 21, 2024

Like the Chevron “Agua es Critica Symposium” series, this week’s New Mexico Women Lead’s “Building an Advanced Energy Ecosystem in New Mexico,” and the recent Energy Policy Symposium in Española, billed as a collaborative forward-thinking event on clean energy, are thinly veiled attempts by the fossil fuel industry to maintain its grip on New Mexico’s energy future and our politicians.

With sponsors like Chevron and the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, it’s no surprise the so-called solutions being promoted are more about corporate profits than genuine climate action. The very industries responsible for the climate crisis should not be the architects of the solutions.

This is akin to letting the tobacco industry craft public health policy. Imagine if tobacco industries had been allowed to write laws aimed at curbing smoking. Would we have seen the same progress in reducing lung cancer or smoking-related illnesses? Absolutely not. Like Big Tobacco once did, the fossil fuel giants are now positioning themselves as part of the solution to the crisis they created — promoting technologies that promise to reduce emissions but only delay meaningful action and sustain their profits.

Take hydrogen, for example. At the symposium, “green” hydrogen is being touted as an “advanced energy solution,” but this is misleading. Hydrogen is energy-intensive to produce, difficult to transport, and the vast majority is still derived from fossil fuels, not renewable sources.

In fact, over 99% of hydrogen today comes from natural gas or coal, contributing directly to carbon emissions. Despite being marketed as a clean fuel, hydrogen is a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry, which seeks to create new markets while locking us into an extractive economy.

The hydrogen push is fueled by billions in taxpayer dollars under the Inflation Reduction Act, meant to subsidize this so-called clean energy. But what’s really happening is that public funds are being funneled to an industry repackaging its dirty product. A recent study showed the energy required to produce hydrogen far outweighs the benefits it offers. The public ends up footing the bill while the fossil fuel industry profits.

Another key piece of the industry’s narrative is carbon capture and sequestration, a technology that’s being promoted as essential for achieving net-zero emissions. But in reality, 81% of carbon captured globally is reused to extract more fossil fuels, and operational projects capture less than 1% of global emissions. It’s a smokescreen for the fossil fuel industry to justify continued extraction while pretending to mitigate their environmental damage. There’s no commercial market for sequestered carbon, and the environmental risks — from groundwater contamination to earthquakes — are well-documented. Are we expected to trust this technology to save us from climate collapse?

The parallels with the tobacco industry are striking. Both industries profit from addiction — the tobacco industry from nicotine, and the fossil fuel industry from our reliance on oil and gas. Both industries have spent decades denying the harmful effects of their products. Now both are trying to deceive the public into believing they are part of the solution while continuing to reap profits.

Bringing these polluters to the table at these symposiums claims to foster collaboration. What Democratic Party leaders are doing is giving the fox the keys to the henhouse. Chevron, the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association and others in the fossil fuel industry are the architects of this crisis, not the solution. We need policies designed by climate scientists, community leaders and activists — not by the industries responsible for the mess we’re in.

Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past. We must reject these false solutions and demand real, transformative action, and center the voices of those most impacted by climate change.

- Alejandría Lyons is the coordinator of the New Mexico No False Solutions and a Xicana organizer from Los Lunas.

 

Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser

New Energy Economy
300 E. Marcy St.,  | Santa Fe, New Mexico  87501
[email protected]| 505-989-7262 

Follow Us

Unsubscribe or Manage Your Preferences