Attorney General Brief

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMM~S,10~! IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION) FILE9 OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OFNEW) MEXICO FOR APPROVAL TO ABANDON ) SAN JUAN GENERATING STATION UNITS ) 2 AND 3, ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES ) OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND ) NECESSITY FOR REPLACEMENT POWER) Case No. 13-00390-UT RESROUCES, ISSUANCE OF ACCOUNTING ) ORDERS AND DETERMINATION OF ) RELATED RATEMAKING PRINCIPLES AND) TREATMENT, ) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO, Applicant. ) ) ) ) ) NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL’S BRIEF IN CHIEF COMES NOW, the New Mexico Attomey General (Attorney General) and files his postHearing Brief pursuant to NMAC Rule 1.2.2.36, the Hearing Examiner’s Oral Order issued on January 27, 2015 and the Briefing Order issued on January 29, 2015. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. 1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 1 PNM’s Original Application and Pre-Stipulation Testimony ......................................... 2 Stipulation ............................................................................................................................. 3 Proposed Modifications ....................................................................................................... II. 5 LEGAL STANDARDS .............................................................................................................. 5 Legal Standard for Abandonment ..................................................................................... 6 Legal Standard For Issuance of CCN ................................................................................ 7 Legal Standard for Acquisition Adiustments ................................................................... 8 Contested Stipulation ........................................................................................................... 8 Standards Relating to Approval of Stipulations ............................................................... 11 Stipulation Modification .................................................................................................... PRC’s authori ,ty to require PNM to issue an RFP for generation resources as 12 requested by opponents of the stip for replacement capaciW of SJ 2 and 3 ................ Commission Authorit~ To Issue The Approval In 28 Outside The Contest Of 13 A CCN Or Rate Case ......................................................................................................... 14 Legal Effect Of Withdrawal Of Signatories .................................................................... 15 IlL DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 15 Abandonment of San Juan Units 2 and 3 ........................................................................ 16 SNCR And Balanced Draft Project (Para~ral~h 28 Of Stip.) ....................................... 16 Palo Verde Unit 3 ............................................................................................................... 18 San Juan Unit 4 .................................................................................................................. 19 RFPs For Resources In Paragraph 31 and 32 of the Stipulation .................................. 19 The Stipulation Meets The Standards For Approval .................................................... The Parties And Staff Had Notice And An Opportuni .ty To Be Heard On The 19 Stipulation ........................................................................................................................... Substantial Evidence in the Record as a Whole Supports the Commission’s Conclusion that The Stipulation is Fair~ Just and Reasonable and in the 20 Public Interest ..................................................................................................................... 20 The Stipulation is Fair~ Just and Reasonable .................................................................. The Stipulation as a Whole~ with the Proposed Modifications~ Does Not 21 Violate Any Important Regulatory. Principle or Practice ............................................. Substantial evidence supports resolution of the reserved issued by placing conditioning the approval of the CCN for the additional 132 MW capacit~ in 22 SJGS Unit 4 ......................................................................................................................... 23 IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... TABLE OF AUTHORITIES NEW MEXICO CASES Application ofPNM Elec. Servs., Div. of Pub. Serv Co. of New Mexico, 1998-NMSC-017, 125 N.M. 302, 307, 961 P.2d 147, 152 (citing Public Serv. Co. v. State, ex rel, Corp. Comm’n, 918 P.2d at 739) (citing reference omitted)) ....................................................................................... 13 Attorney General v. N. M. Pub. Serv. Comm’n., 111 N.M. 636, 808 P.2d 606 (1991) ...................... 8 at 640 ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Attomey General v. NMPUC and NMIEC, 128 N.M. 747, 998 P.2d 1198 (2000) (Sema, special concurring opinion) .................................................................................................... 12 Duke City Lumber Co. v. N.M. Environmental Improvement Board, 107 N.M. 291,293, 681 P.2d 717 (1984) ............................................................................................................................ 10 Freedman v. Perea, 85 N.M. 745, 746, 517 P.2d 67, 68 (1973) ......................................................... 12 Industrial Energy Consumers v. New Mexico Public Service Commission, 104 N.M. 565, 725 P.2d 244 (1986) .....................................................................................................9 Pub. Serv. Co. of New Mexico, 119 PUR 4t~ 48 (Aug. 3, 1990) .................................................... 5, 6 Public Service Company of New Mexico, 110 PUR 4t~, 69, 82-85 (1990) ................................... (2009 PNM Case) 9, 16 Public Service Company of New Mexico, 157 PUR 4t~ 540 (1994) ................................................. 10 Public Serv. Co. of N.M.v. New Mexico Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 112 N.M. 379, ~ ..................6 815 P.2d 1169 (1991) ......................................................................................................... 11 Owen v. Bum Const. Co., 90 N.M. 297, 299, 563 P.2d 91, 93 1977) ............................................... Rinker v. State Corporation Comm’n, 84 N.M. 626, 627, 506 P.2d 783,784 (1973) ....................... 10 SW Pub. Serv. Co., 295 PUR 4t~ 508 (Jan. 3, 2012) ............................................................................ 6 Valle Vista Water Utili _ty Co., 212 PUR 4t~ 305, 309 (2001) ............................................................... 6 Zia Natural Gas, 2000-NMSC-011 ~ 14-21,128 N.M. 728, 734-36, 998 P.2d 546 (2000) ............10 NEW MEXICO STATUTES NMSA (1978) 8 62-6-4(A) ........................................................................................................... 13, 14 NMSA (1978) 8 62-9-1(A) (2005) ....................................................................................................... 6 NMSA (1978) 88 62-9-5 (2005) ........................................................................................................... 1 NMSA 1978 8 62-9-6 ........................................................................................................................... 6 NEW MEXICO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Rule 17.7.3 NMAC ............................................................................................................................... 6 Rule 17.7.3.12(B) NMAC ................................................................................................................. 6, 7 Rule 1.2.2.20(B) NMAC ................................................................................................................. 8, 10 Rule 1.2.2.20(B)(4) NMAC .................................................................................................................. 8 NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION CASES 2440 ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 09-00245-UT ......................................................................................................................................... 8 10-00037-UT ................................................................................................................................... 9, 20 10-00226-UT ......................................................................................................................................... 6 11-00042-UT ....................................................................................................................................... 11 11-00263-UT ....................................................................................................................................... 12 iii I. BACKGROUND PNM’s Original Application And Pre-Stipulation Testimony Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) and San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) are required to comply with the Regional Haze Rule, implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act. Under the Regional Haze Rule, the EPA issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for SJGS which included installing SCRs on all four units of SJGS. Following negotiations between the EPA and PNM and others, the Revised State Implementation Plan (RSIP) was approved. The RSIP calls for the closure of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and the installation of SNCRs on SJGS Units 1 and 4. The RSIP has been approved by the EPA and the New Mexico Environment Improvement Board. However, under NMSA 1978 Section 62-9-5 (2005), PNM still needs Public Regulation Commission (PRC or Commission) approval to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. On December 13, 2013 PNM filed an application with the Commission for among other things, the approvals necessary to implement the RSIP. That application was amended numerous times, finally completed on July 15, 2013 and requested the following: approval to abandon Units 2 and 3 of SJGS; issuance of a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) for inclusion in New Mexico rates of its 10.2% (134 MW) interest in Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Unit 3; and a CCN to acquire 132 MW of capacity in SJGS Unit 4. PNM also sought approval to include in future rates recovery of 100% of its undepreciated investment in SJGS Units 2 and 3 in an amount of approximately $205 million; a price of $2,500 per MW ($335 million total) for its share of PVNGS Unit 3; $90.6 million for its share of the SNCR and balanced draft to be installed on SJGS Units 1 and 4; $52.5 million for the additional capacity in SJGS Unit 4; and an approximate cost of $I9.9 million for facilitating the ownership restructuring of SJGS and the costs thus far of complying with the FIP. Staff and intervenors to this case filed testimony largely in opposition to the application on August 29, 2014. In his initial testimony in response to PNM’s application the Attorney General opposed the application because its impact on ratepayers was unacceptable. Attorney General witnesses opposed the application in a number of areas which included the proposed valuation of PVNGS Unit 3, the recovery of undepreciated assets from SJGS units 2 and 3 and the acquisition of the additional capacity in SJGS unit 4. Stipulation Subsequent to Staff and Intervenors filing testimony, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations. On October 1, 2014 PNM along with Staff, the Attorney General, Western Resource Advocates (WRA), Renewable Energy Industry Association New Mexico (REIA) and New Mexico Independent Power Producers (NMIPP) submitted an executed stipulation that resolved most of the issues in PNM’s application. New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers (NMIEC) submitted a notice ofjoinder in the stipulation on October 14, 2014. The Stipulation is a broad settlement reflecting fully negotiated positions of the signatories on the how PNM will implement the RSIP. It resolves all of the signatories concerns except those regarding whether there should be and if so, what conditions should be imposed on the proposed CCN for the 132 MW of capacity in SJGS unit 4. Under the terms of the stipulation PNM would be authorized, among other things, to abandon SJGS units 2 and 3, acquire the 132 MW capacity at SJGS unit 4 (with or without conditions per the "reserved issue") and bring PVNGS 3 into rates. PNM would recover 50% the undepreciated costs associated with SJGS units 2 and 3; PNM would acquire the addition capacity in SJGS unit 4 for $26 million; and PNM would bring its share of PVNGS into rates at an amount of $1,650 per MW ($221.1 million). Besides the obvious savings to rate payers of the stipulation when compared to the initial application, ratepayers also benefit in a number of other ways which are unlikely to have been secured through traditional litigation of the original application. Some of these additional benefits include: PNM will not seek recovery of its undepreciated investment in the additional 132 MW of SJGS unit 4; PVNGS Units 1, 2 and 3 are required to run at a 75% capacity factor through 2024 with PNM responsible for incremental costs of not meeting that benchmark; a cap on the PVNGS decommissioning funding, as well as a pro-rata sharing of costs over that cap; complete disallowance of recovery of costs associated with FIP compliance and SJGS restructuring costs; and a refund of $3.0 million through the FPPCAC of refunds received from Department of Energy for spent fuel storage which would otherwise go to shareholders. Since the filing of testimony in support of the stipulation WRA, NMIPP and REIA have withdrawn from the stipulation, leaving the Attorney General, NMIEC, Staff and PNM as signatories. Proposed Modifications: Another material development occurred after parties filed testimony and, indeed, after the hearing in this matter began. That development was the City of Farmington’s January 7, 2015 letter informing PNM and thus the parties to this proceeding that they would be changing their position to the SJGS restructuring agreement. In Farmington’s letter, they informed PNM that they would not be acquiring the additional 65 MW as part of their role in the SJGS restructuring agreement. 3 This development precipitated NMIPP, REIA and WRA’s withdrawal as signatories to the stipulation. It also caused PNM to offer additional conditions to the stipulation. See January 14 Supplemental Testimony and Exhibits in Support of Stipulation of Chris M. Olson, PNM Exhibit 52 (January 14, 2015). PNM, through the testimony of Mr. Olson agreed to four additional conditions to which it would agree to with respect to approval of the stipulation. PNM has agreed that PNM will not acquire the additional megawatts in SJGS 4, PNM will ensure that the customer benefits agreed to in the stipulation will remain unchanged, the cost allocation benefits for customers will remain the same and PNM will have a binding restructuring agreement executed by May 1, 2015. PNM Exhibit 52, p. 6. In response to the development of Farmington’s letter and PNM’s proposed additional conditions, Attorney General witness Andrea Crane proposed additional conditions that the Attorney General supports the Commission including to protect rate payers. The Attorney General believes that no PNM entity should acquire the 65 MW but if a PNM entity does acquire the capacity, PNM should acquire it an simply run it as a merchant plant, much the way PVNGS unit 3 is currently run. Second, the Attorney General believes that to any extent a restructuring agreement is more favorable to ratepayers than the terms currently in the stipulation, those benefits should be passed through to ratepayers. Thirdly, the Attorney General believes that any approval of the stipulation should be conditioned on PNM having a signed SJGS participation agreement by May 1, 2015. If PNM does not have a signed participation agreement by May 1, 2015, PNM should have to submit another plan to the Commission. Fourthly, the Attorney General believes that in regard to the CCN for 132 MW additional capacity in SJGS unit 4, the CCN should be conditioned upon PNM not entering into a coal supply agreement that extends past 2022 or if it does, than submitting such an agreement for approval by the Commission. If an 4 agreement that reaches past 2022 does not meet Commission approval, the CCN for 132 MW is invalid and that capacity cannot be included in NM retail rates. Hearing Transcript 2697-2700 (January 21, 2015). II. LEGAL STANDARDS Legal Standard for Abandonment The statutory requirement which PNM must meet to abandon SJGS units 2 and 3 is found in NMSA Section 62-9-5 (2005). That section provides, in relevant part: No utility shall abandon all or any portion of its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the commission, or any service rendered by means of such facilities, without first obtaining the permission and approval of the commission. The commission shall grant such permission and approval, after notice and heating, upon finding that the continuation of service is unwarranted or that the present and future public convenience and necessity do not otherwise require the continuation of the service or use of the facility; []. In considering the present and future public convenience and necessity, the commission shall specifically consider the impact of the proposed abandonment of service on all consumers served in this state, directly or indirectly, by the facilities sought to be abandoned. When considering whether abandonment meets the statutory requirement laid out above, the Commission has traditionally looked at a "totality of the circumstances" as well as the Commuter’s Committee four factor test as adopted in Re: Pub. Serv. Co. of New Mexico~ 119 PUR 4th 48 (Aug. 3, 1990) (internal citations omitted). The four factors are: "(1) The extent of the carrier’s loss on the particular branch or portion of the service, and the relation of that loss to the carrier’s operation as a whole; (2) the use of the service by the public and the prospects as to future use; (3) a balancing of the carrier’s loss with the inconvenience and hardship to the public upon discontinuance of such service; (4) the availability and the adequacy of service to be substituted." Id. 5 (See also In the Matter of the Application of Fort Selden Water Co. to Abandon All Regulated Util. Serv. & to Transfer Assets & Operation to Dona Ana Mut. Domestic Water Consumers Ass’n, Fort Selden Water Co., Applicant., Case No. 10-00226-UT (July 5, 2011) stating that the four factors from Commuter’s Committee are among the factors to be considered in determining the existence or non existence of public convenience and necessity for abandonment.) Legal Standard For Issuance Of CCN In the January 29, 2015 Briefing Order, the Hearing Examiner ordered the parties to address "the legal standard for the Commission to issue a CCN for generation resources and the relationship of that authority to the Integrated Resource Plan rule in 17.7.3 NMAC under the circumstances in this case." At ¶3. No public utility is allowed to construct or operate a plant or system without a CCN from the Commission. NMSA § 62-9-1(A) (2005). In determining whether to issue a CCN, NMSA 1978 § 62-9-6 requires the Commission to give due regard to the public convenience and necessity. "[P]ublic convenience and necessity"implies a net public benefit and the Commission has equated it with the public interest. Re: Valle Vista Water Utility Co., 212 P.U.R. 4th 305, 309 (2001) (public convenience and necessity implies net public benefit) and Re: Public Serv. Co., 119 PUR 4th 48, 50 (1990), aff’d, Public Serv. Co. of N.M.v. New Mexico Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 112 N.M. 379, 815 P.2d 1169 (1991) (Commission equates public convenience and necessity with public interest.) It is clear that in issuing a CCN, the Commission may attach any terms and conditions consistent with the PUA which the public convenience and necessity require, as determined by the Commission. NMSA 1978, § 62-9-6. The IRP Rule requires that utilities file comprehensive plans for system-wide resources, "...in part to assist the Commission in its review of plant additions that require CCN approval." In Re: SW. Pub. Serv. Co., 295 PUR 4th 508 (Jan. 3, 2012) Rule 17.7.3.12(B) NMAC requires the utility show that the requested resource is consistent with the utility’s Commission-accepted IRP unless material changes have occurred that would warrant a different utility course of action. Normally, such evidence would constitute prima facie evidence that the resource type, but not the particular resource being proposed, is required by the public convenience and necessity. 17.7.3.12(B) NMAC. Rule 17.7.3.12(B) is merely a mechanism to shift the burden of proof from the utility to other parties who may wish to challenge the proposed resource acquisition. Importantly, this rule does not prohibit the Commission from granting a CCN if it is determined that the proposed resource is not consistent with the Commission-accepted IRP. The rule merely requires the utility to present evidence of resources consistency, if the resource is not consistent with an approved IRP, the burden to show the resource is required by the public convenience and necessity stays with the utility. Under the circumstances at issue in this case, PNM did present evidence that the proposed CCN’s were consistent with its 2014 IRP. However, the 2014 IRP has not been approved by the Commission because it is in abeyance pending the outcome of this proceeding. Therefore, the burden stays with the signatories of the Stipulation to show the resources at issue are required by the public convenience and necessity. Legal Standard For Acquisition Adiustments In the January 29, 2015 Briefing Order, the Hearing Examiner ordered the parties to address "the Commission’s standard for acquisition adjustments and the evidence that supports such an adjustment for the inclusion of Palo Verde Unit 3". At ¶5 When dealing with acquisition adjustments, the Commission has noted that, generally, each case involving acquisition adjustments should be resolved on their own facts. Case No. 09- 00245-UT, Final Order issued June 10, 2010 (adopting Recommended Decision). In Case No. 09-00245-UT the Commission adopted the Recommended Decision that discussed treatment of acquisition adjustments. Id. The Recommended Decision notes that the Commission has looked with favor upon the use of four factors when considering acquisition adjustments. These factors are: (1) when acquisitions represent an essential or desirable part of an integration of facilities program devoted to serving the public better; (2) when acquisitions are clearly in the public interest, because operating efficiencies purchased offset the excess price over net original cost; (3) when the terms of the acquisition agreement receive prior regulatory approval, especially if there is a public hearing and investigation that concludes the transaction is in the public interest; and (4) when acquisitions are determined to involve arm’s length bargaining. Id__ (See also Case No. 2440, Final Order p. 5 Issued Dec. 15, 1992. (stating the Commission views the factors favorably.)) Contested Stipulation The Commission has historically promoted a policy of settling cases through stipulation. Rule 1.2.2.20 NMAC sets forth the standards and procedure for the Commission review of formal Stipulations. Specifically, Rule 1.2.2.20(B) NMAC governs Contested Stipulations. Rule 1.2.2.20(B)(4) NMAC requires "the proponents of the stipulation have the burden of supporting the stipulation with sufficient evidence and legal argument to allow the Commission to approve it." The Commission and the Supreme Court have held that stipulations must be in the public interest. Attorney General v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm., 111 NM 636, 808 P.2d 606 (1991). The applicable legal requirements for contested stipulation review are set forth in Case No. 10- 00037-UT. In that case, citing to Attorney General v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm., at 640, the Commission stated: The Supreme Court has held that the Commission can adopt a contested stipulation by: "first, affording any non-stipulation party an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the stipulation (i.e., whether it is a fair and reasonable resolution of the controversy, before the Commission) and second, making an independent finding, supported by substantial evidence in the record, that the stipulation does indeed resolve the matters disputed in a way that is fair, just and reasonable and in the public interest." The Supreme Court also recognized, in line with its earlier holding in Industrial Energy Consumers v. New Mexico Public Service Commission, 104 NM 565, 725 P.2d 244 (1986), that a cooperative approach in reconciling the interests of the parties is consistent with the public policy favoring settlement of disputes. In previous cases, the Commission has applied additional principles when considering the reasonableness of a proposed settlement, including: (i) Is the settlement a product of serious bargaining among capable, knowledgeable parties? (ii) Does the settlement, as a whole, benefit customers and the public interest? (iii) Does the settlement, as a whole, violate any important regulatory principle or practice? [Citations omitted.] Case No. 10-00037-UT, In the Matter of the Renewables Stipulation and Public Service Company of New Mexico’s Revised 2010 Renewable Energy Portfolio Procurement Plan, Recommended Decision, pp. 14-15, issued August 3, 2010, adopted by Final Order Partially Adopting Recommended Decision issued August 31, 2010 (Revised 2009 SPS Case). The Commission has thoroughly examined its authority to consider and adopt a contested stipulation in Re: Public Service Company of New Mexico, 110 PUR 4th 69, 82-85 (1990) ("2009 PNM Case"). In that case, after examining its authority to consider and adopt contested stipulations, including its authority to adopt procedural rules for hearing and review of contested stipulation, and including the standards followed in New Mexico and other jurisdictions, the Commission summarized its "view of the requirements for determining whether a contested stipulation should be adopted as follows": (a) the parties and Staff had notice and opportunity to be heard on the stipulation; (b) substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the Commission’s 9 conclusion that the stipulation is fair, just and reasonable and in the public interest; and (c) the stipulation is in accordance with applicable law. Id._ at 85. In Re: Public Service Company of New Mexico, 157 PUR 4t~ 540 (1994), the Commission again emphasized the strong public policy favoring dispute resolution through settlement and stated: Recognizing the "strong public policy favoring the setting of disputes to avoid costly and protracted litigation"..., and knowing the "a cooperative approach may be more effective in reconciling the interests of all the parties than would the polarization which often accompanies adversarial proceedings"..., this Commission has long had a policy that permits the filing of contested stipulations..., and a procedure for the consideration of such stipulations. Id__ at 549-540. [Citations omitted.] In that case, like in the 2009 PNM Case, the Commission again examined its procedural rules regarding Commission review of contested stipulation which are the same as the Commission’s current Rule 1.2.2.20(B) NMAC regarding review of contested stipulation. Id. at 540. Finally, in that case, the Commission once again rearticulated the standard of review it uses in considering whether to adopt a contested stipulation. Id. at 550; and 2009 PNM Case at 85. Where a substantial interest is at stake, decisions of a regulatory agency that affect that right must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Duke City Lumber Co. v. N.M. Environmental Improvement Board, 107 N.M. 291,293,681 P.2d 717 (1984) (citing Rinker v. State Corporation Comm’n, 84 NM 626, 627, 506 P.2d 783, 784 (1973)); see also In re Zia Natural Gas, 2000-NMSC-011 ¶¶ 14-21,128 N.M. 728, 734-36, 998 P.2d 546 (2000). 10 While the burden is on the proponents of the stipulation to support the stipulation, the New Mexico Supreme Court has held that the Commission can adopt the stipulation if "substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the Commission’s decision that balances the interests of consumers, investors and the public, and, based on that analysis, it independently determines that the stipulation is reasonable." Case No. l l-00042-UT Certification of Stipulation (Approved in Final Order Approving Certification of Stipulation, issued January 31, 2012) There is no dispute that the issues at stake in this proceeding implicate a substantial consumer interest. And thus any decision by the Commission must be supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Stipulation Modification The Stipulation cannot be modified by the Commission absent agreement of the Signatories. Stipulation Paragraph 37, in relevant part provides: "This Stipulation reflects a negotiated settlement. The Signatories agree that they will use their best efforts to obtain expeditious approval of this Stipulation by appropriate final order of the Commission in this proceeding. If the Stipulation is not adopted in its entirety by the Commission, without modification, the Stipulation will be voidable and may be voided at the election of any Signatory." Accordingly, the Stipulation by its own terms, if not adopted by the Commission in its entirety, may be void. This standard provision, contained in many stipulations filed with the Commission, reflects the negotiated nature of any proposed settlement. Under New Mexico law, a court lacks authority to modify a stipulated judgment absent consent of the parties to the agreement. Owen v. Burn Const. Co., 90 N.M. 297, 299, 563 P.2d 91, 93 (1977) (a stipulated judgment is considered to be "a contract between the parties" which a 11 court only has authority to interpret and enforce as agreed to by the parties); and Freedman v. Perea, 85 N.M. 745, 746, 517 P.2d 67, 68 (1973) (a court may modify its findings in apt time but it cannot change or modify a contract of the parties). While the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue directly, it has come close by concluding, in a special concurring opinion of Justice Serna joined by Justice Baca, that the Commission lacks authority to modify a stipulation. In re Attorney General v. NMPUC and NMIEC, 128 N.M. 747, 998 P.2d 1198 (2000) (Serna, special concurring opinion). However, the Commission has the authority to act consistent with what it deems to be the public interest. While, the Commission clearly cannot unilaterally modify a stipulation, the Commission has given the parties an opportunity to willingly modify a stipulation if the Commission determines the stipulation should be altered in some specific way. "[t]he Commission has stated that there is no apparent reason why the Commission should not at least give the parties the opportunity to preserve those benefits by modifying other provisions of the Stipulation that are contrary to law or Commission policy or by removing provisions that are unjust and unreasonable. Simply because the Stipulation includes a provision that renders it void if it is not adopted in its entirety by the Commission does not prohibit the parties from voluntarily agreeing to a Stipulation that is modified in accordance with [a] Final Order Partially Approving Certification of Stipulation[...], Case No. 11-00263-UT Certification of Stipulation, p 5 (Approved by Final Order issued December 15, 2011). If the Commission determines that portions of the Stipulation are contrary to public interest, or that the stipulation should contain other elements, the Commission is free to offer those changes to the signatories. It then becomes up to the signatories to the stipulation to determine if the modifications, as proposed by the Commission, change their position in such a way as to require them to void the stipulation. PRC’s authority to require PNM to issue a RFP for generation resources as re~luest by Olmonents of the stip for replacement capacity, of SJ 2 and 3. 12 In the January 29, 2015 Briefing Order, the Heating Examiner ordered the parties to address "the Commission’s legal authority to require PNM to issue a Request for Proposals (RFPs) for generation resources as requested by the opponents of the Stipulation in this case to replace the capacity proposed for abandonment in San Juan Units 2 and 3." At ¶ 6 There is no direct authority for the Commission to require PNM to issue the RFPs for replacement generation resources, as requested by the opponents of the Stipulation. It is true; the Commission has broad authority in exercise of its jurisdiction. NMSA 1978 § 62-6-4(A) provides that the Commission may do all things "necessary and convenient in the exercise of its power and jurisdiction. Commission has authority to do all things necessary and proper in furtherance of its duty. While, the PRC’s authority to interject itself into the internal management of a utility is limited, the Commission can act in areas "seemingly reserved to management prerogative where the regulated action is "impressed with public interest." Application ofPNM Elec. Servs., Div. of Pub. Serv. Co. of New Mexico, 1998-NMSC-017, 125 N.M. 302, 307, 961 P.2d 147, 152 (citing Public Serv. Co. v. State ex rel. Corp. Comm’n, 918 P.2d at 739 (citing reference omitted)). Thus while it is unclear if the Commission can actually order PNM to issue RFPs as suggested by opponents to the Stipulation, it is clear that the Commission can reject the Stipulation, or elements of it, under the rational that no RFPs have been issued. If the Commission determines that RFPs are the more appropriate manner with which to find replacement resources, it is clearly flee to note that in a decision rejecting the Stipulation. There is no doubt that such an order would clearly be within the scope of Commission authority. Commission Authoritv To Issue The Approval In 28 Outside The Context Of A CCN Or Rate Case. 13 In the January 29, 2015 Briefing Order, the Hearing Examiner ordered the parties to address "the Commission’s legal authority to issue the approval in paragraph 28 of the stipulation outside the context of a proceeding for a CCN and outside the context of a rate case." At¶4 Paragraph 28 of the Stipulation provides "PNM’s reasonable and prudent share of the costs of the SNCR Project at SJGS Units 1 and 4 shall be included in rate base. To the extent that the PNM share of the costs associated with the SNCR Project exceeds $90.6 million, PNM shall be required to make an affirmative demonstration that incurrence of the cost overruns was prudent and reasonable." There is no statute or rule which directly addresses the Commission’s legal authority to issue the approval in paragraph 28 of the stipulation. However, the Commission does have broad authority in the exercise of its statutory duties. See NMSA 1978 § 62-6-4(A). It has become clear through the proceeding that the effect of paragraph is to place a cap on the amount to which the normal burden shifting applies in the future rate case. See Hearing Transcript 84-94 (January 5, 2015). All signatories to the stipulation agree that the approval that is requested as to paragraph 28 is for the cap of $90.6 million. As such, the Commission clearly has authority to approve an agreement between signatories that such a cap will be binding in future rate cases. Legal Effect Of Withdrawal Of Signatories The January 29, 2015 Briefing Order, ordered the parties to address "the effect on the Stipulation, if any, of the withdrawals from the Stipulation of the New Mexico Independent Power Producers, the Renewable Energy Industries Association of New Mexico and Western Resource Advocates." At ¶ 2. 14 The withdrawal of NMIPP, REIA NM, and WRA from the stipulation was due, at least in part, to the January 7, 2015 letter from Farmington, refusing to acquire the 65 MW to which they had originally agreed. Even with the withdrawals of the parties, the Stipulation remains intact, with a number of parties remaining signatories. The Stipulation retains all the benefits and protections originally negotiated. However, the withdrawal of the parties does highlight the uncertainty PNM still faces with regard to SJGS and it is clear that the circumstances under which the Stipulation was negotiated have altered. Because of this heightened uncertainty and the altering of circumstances, the Attorney General has recommended additional conditions which he believes would best serve the public interest. While unfortunate, the withdrawal of the parties has no legal effect on the Stipulation. IlL DISCUSSION In the January 29, 2015 Briefing Order, the parties were ordered to "[p]rovide a statement of your positions on the Stipulation and each of its major elements, including the abandonment of San Juan Units 2 and 3 (abandonment and cost recovery); the SNCR and balanced draft project (paragraph 28 of the Stipulation); Palo Verde Unit 3 (issuance of CCN, valuation, capacity factor benchmark, decommissioning costs); San Juan Unit 4 (issuance of CCN, valuation, reserved issue); and RFPs for resources in paragraph 31 and 32 of the Stipulation." At ¶ 1. Each of those issues is addressed in turn. Abandonment of San Juan Units 2 and 3. No party to this proceeding is contesting the abandonment of the San Juan Units 2 and 3. And neither is the Attorney General. The Attorney General supports abandonment of San Juan Units 2 and 3. 15 The distinction in this case, however, is that some parties would have the Commission approve abandonment without first having some certainty as to how the replacement power would be generated. The fourth factor of the Commuter’s Committee is "the availability and the adequacy of service to be substituted". Re. Pub. Serv. Co. of New Mexico (1990). The Commission should not approve abandonment without first being aware of the availability and adequacy of replacement resources. At this time, the only replacement resources that are certain to be available to adequately meet PNM’s load are those resources contained in the Stipulation. If the Commission determines that the Stipulation’s proposed resources are unacceptable, abandonment should not be approved. SNCR And Balanced Draft Project (Paragraph 28 Of Stip.) During the examination of Mr. Gerard Ortiz, the meaning of Stipulation paragraph became clear. Every signatory to the stipulation agreed that paragraph 28 was meant to cap the amount of money to which the normal burden shifting mechanism would apply. That cap is the only item of approval requested from the Commission in paragraph 28. Hearing Transcript 84-94 (January 5, 2015). The Attorney General would oppose if the Commission interprets this provision contrary to the understanding of the parties, so as to give it the effect of approving the prudency and reasonableness of the "SNCR Project." To the extent that this provision seeks to cap the prima facie case of reasonableness at $90.6 million, the Attorney General supports such a cap. Palo Verde Unit 3. CCN. The Attorney General does not oppose a CCN for capacity in PVNGS Unit 3 subject to appropriate valuation and consumer protections. The Attorney General believes that such consumer protections are contained in the Stipulation. 16 Valuation. Attorney General Witness, Andrea Crane has stated that as a general principle, the Attorney General supports valuing PVNGS unit 3 at book value at the time the plant enters utility service. Hearing Transcript 2711:10-12 (January 21,2015). However, the Attorney General recognized that there were valuations other than book value which could have been considered. Hearing Transcript 2719:7-15 (January 21, 2015). Solely in the context of the Stipulation, with the other elements of consumer protection around PVNGS unit 3 and other benefits of the Stipulation, the Attorney General supports the valuation of PVNGS unit 3 contained in the stipulation. Capacity benchmark factors. The Attorney General supports the capacity benchmark factors contained in the stipulation. The ability of the signatories to become part of the resolution should the 75% capacity factor benchmark not apply as described in paragraph 24 of the Stipulation, is invaluable. Paragraph 24 of the Stipulation helps prevent PNM from unilaterally proposing a solution to a problem that affects all the signatories. Also, the assurance that PNM will be responsible for the incremental replacement power should PVNGS not achieve its capacity factor benchmark is a clear protection to consumers. See Stipulation ¶ 22. Decommissioning costs. The Stipulation provides that PNM shall contribute $11 million towards the decommissioning trust. Ratepayers will contribute $1.3 million annually to cover the contributions to the decommissioning trust for PVNGS 3. If the amount required to be contributed increases above $1.3 million almually, PNM and ratepayers will split the increase 50%/50%. Stipulation ¶ 25. According to PNM witness Ron Darnell, there will be a pro-rata sharing of decommissioning costs. Hearing Transcript 379-380 (January 7, 2015). Therefore the decommissioning cost split would be a split of the percentage of the amount of time PVNGS 3 17 was in rates. The remainder of PVNGS’s decommissioning would be bome by PNM shareholders exclusively. The Attorney General supports these terms of the Stipulation. San Juan Unit 4. Issuance of CCN. The Attorney General still supports the issuance of a CCN for the 132 MW additional capacity in SJGS Unit 4. The Stipulation provides for ratepayer protections around the acquisition of the additional capacity. Those protections include, among other items, a commitment that PNM will not seek recovery of any undepreciated investment in that incremental capacity should unit 4 be closed before its anticipated depreciated life. Stipulation ~ 19. However, the Attorney General now believes that the CCN should be conditioned upon the recommendations addressed in the reserved issue. Valuation. The Attorney General does not oppose the valuation of SJGS unit 4 at an amount of $26 million. Reserved issue. The Attorney General supports the conditioning of a CCN for SJGS unit 4 incremental 132MW capacity on PNM entering into an agreement for fuel supply that either does not extend past 2022 or if the agreement does extend past 2022, PNM must obtain Commission approval of that contract. Hearing Transcript 2699-2700 (January 21, 2015). Essentially, if the fuel supply agreement does not extend past 2022 or if the Commission approves a longer term fuel supply agreement the CCN for the 132 MW in SJGS is valid. If the fuel supply agreement extends past 2022 and the Commission does not approve it, the CCN for the 132 MW in SJGS unit 4 becomes invalid because the conditions on it have not been met. 18 RFPs For Resources In Para~raph 31 And 32 Of The Stipulation. The Attomey General supports the provisions contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Stipulation because he believes there is significant benefit to these provisions. Paragraphs 31 of the Stipulation provides that PNM issue an RFP in 2015 for additional renewable resources. It goes on to require that PNM file an application for any resources that it determines are cost-effective. If no resources are cost effective, PNM will file a report with the Commission stating as much. Attorney General Witness Andrea Crane testified as to the benefit of paragraph 31 during her cross examination at page 2715. Paragraph 31 gives renewable resource providers the opportunity to submit bids and be competitive. At the same time, it protects rate payers because if there is no cost effective resource identified, PNM is not obligated to acquire any resource. In the event that a cost-effective resource is identified, PNM is obligated to apply to the Commission to acquire that resource. Paragraph 32 of the Stipulation provides that PNM shall issue an all-source RFP for resources deemed to be necessary in the 2020-2022 timeframe as identified in the 2017 IRP. Paragraph 32 is a benefit because it provides renewable resources to prove that they are more cost effective than non-renewables. If that is the case, both the renewable industries and ratepayers will benefit. The Stipulation Meets The Standards For Approval The parties and Staff had notice and an opportunity to be heard on the stipulation One of the requirements when examining contested stipulation is whether or not the parties and Staff had notice and an opportunity to be heard on the stipulation. There appears to be no challenge from any party that appropriate notice of the Stipulation was given. There is 19 also, little doubt that the parties had a full opportunity to be heard. Parties were permitted to engage in discovery, file testimony in support or opposition to the Stipulation and cross examine the evidence presented by opposing parties. Clearly, parties were heard on the Stipulation, as evidenced by the fact that opposition testimony was being submitted as late as January 8, 2015 (Supplemental Surrebuttal of Dr. Jeremy Fisher on Behalf of NEE). Substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the Commission’s conclusion that the stipulation is fair~ just and reasonable and in the public interest There is sufficient evidence in the record for the Commission to conclude that the Stipulation, with the proposed modifications, is fair, just and reasonable. The Stipulation is a package and should be considered as such because no single element of the Stipulation can be considered fair, just and reasonable by itself. It is only when considered as part of the whole package of terms and benefits that the Stipulation becomes acceptable. Due to the change in circumstances that were discovered either shortly before the hearing or during the pendency of the heating, modifications have been proposed by both PNM and the Attorney General. The record contains substantial evidence to support the Commission’s adoption of the modifications. The Stipulation is Fair, Just and Reasonable. When considering the reasonableness of a stipulation, the Commission has considered the following: 1) is the settlement a product of serious bargaining among capable, knowledgeable parties? 2) Does the settlement, as a whole, benefit customers and the public interest? And 3) Does the settlement, as a whole, violate any important regulatory principle or practice? Case No. 10-00037-UT Recommended Decision at 15 (2010). There can be little doubt that the settlement is a product of serious bargaining among capable, knowledgeable parties. The parties to this case engaged in many, many rounds of 20 discovery and issued hundreds of interrogatories. Additionally, all parties to the Stipulation are represented by counsel. The signatories were advised by and consulted with numerous subject matter experts. The terms of the stipulation, and the proposed modifications, are the result of serious bargaining by capable knowledgeable parties. See Hearing Transcript 2723:10-13, 22 (January 21, 2015). The Stipulation, as a whole, with the proposed modifications, benefits customers and the public interest. The customer benefit of the Stipulation has been discussed in great detail through the testimonies put forth by the signatories to the Stipulation. The signatories to the Stipulation represent the public interest through PRC Staff, as well as consumers of all sizes from residential and small commercial (represented by the Attorney General) to large industrial consumers (represented by NMIEC). Additionally, the closure of two units of SJGS represents a significant reduction in PNM’s coal reliance, therefore furthering the public interest in shifting reliance away from fossil fuels. The Stipulation~ as a whole~ with the proposed modifications~ does not violate any important regulatory principle or practice. The Stipulation is consistent with applicable regulatory standards. Abandonment of SJGS units 2 and 3 is needed to comply with the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule. But regardless of the Federal Requirement, these units could not be shutdown if doing so would violate the regulatory principles of abandonment. The Stipulation is supported by substantial evidence that meets the requirements for abandonment. Opponents to the Stipulation advocate for approval of abandonment without an adequate plan for replacement resources. Contrary to the terms of the stipulation, the opponents suggested course of action actually violates the regulatory principles behind abandonment. 21 The regulatory standards in regard to issuance of CCNs have been met by the Stipulation, with the proposed modification. The Stipulation provides for the issuance of two CCN’s, the first for the inclusion of PVNGS unit 3 in rates and the second for PNM’s acquisition of 132 MW of capacity in SJGS unit 4. Both the Stipulation and the record as a whole contain substantial evidence to support the issuance of these CCNs. If SJGS units 2 and 3 are to be abandoned, there is a need for adequate replacement facilities. That replacement, in large part, comes from the inclusion of these two facilities in rates. It is argued that the CCNs for replacement capacity should be denied because they were not selected using an RFP. However, as Attorney General witness Andrea Crane discusses, sometimes RFPs are not the best solution. Ms. Crane stated "There is really no guarantee that a request for proposal is going to generate the best solution. I think that you have to look at the situation that you are involved with at any given time. And it may be that if you want to buy pencils, it might be a good idea to go out and put out an RFP. But when you have a very complex system with assets that are already partially--that are only partially recovered, when you have assets that are owned by multiple owners who might have different interests, and different goals and objectives with regard to those assets, it may, in fact, not be the best outcome to issue an RFP. I think you need to look at the situation involved, you know, that’s presented to you." Hearing Transcript 2734-2735 (January 21, 2015). She goes on to state that in this situation, she is not convinced that any of the altematives proposed by the opposition would be preferable. Id at 2736. Substantial Evidence Supports Resolution Of The Reserved Issue By Placing Conditioning The Approval Of The CCN For The Additional 132 MW Capaci ,ty In SJGS Unit 4 It has become clear that the reserved issue should be resolved by placing conditions on the approval of the CCN for the additional 132 MW capacity in SJGS unit 4. The Farmington letter of January 7, 2015 and the withdrawal of certain parties from the stipulation highlight the uncertainty surrounding the ownership agreement and future fuel supply of the San Juan 22 Generating Station. Because of such uncertainty, the Attorney General finds it appropriate to recommend conditions for the approval of the CCN for additional capacity in SJGS unit 4. As discussed by Ms. Crane at the hearing, pages 2699-2700, the Attorney General recommends that any CCN for the additional capacity in Unit 4 be conditioned on PNM entering an acceptable fuel supply agreement. Hearing Transcript 2699-2700 (January 21,2015). An acceptable agreement would be one that does not extend past 2022 or if it does extend past 2022, it would be subject to Commission approval. If the fuel supply agreement extends past 2022 and the Commission does not grant approval of that agreement, the CCN for the additional capacity in unit 4 would be void due to a failure of these conditions. IV. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the Attorney General respectfully requests the Commission issue a Final Order which: 1) Adopts the Stipulation; 2) Proposes modification to the Stipulation consistent with the recommendations of both PNM witness Olson and Attorney General witness Crane; 3) Resolves the reserved issue by conditioning the grant of the CCN for additional capacity in SJGS unit 4 on PNM entering into an acceptable fuel supply agreement; 4) Orders PNM shareholders to bear all costs associated with the San Juan Restructuring Agreement in excess of those already identified in this proceeding; and 5) Any further relief the Commission deems just and reasonable. 23 Respectfully Submitted, Office of the New Mexico Attorney General HECTOR H. BALDERAS NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL Assistant Attorney General Post Office Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508 (505)827-7484 ckhour¥@nmag.gov DATED this 15th day of February, 2015. 24 BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) MEXICO FOR APPROVAL TO ABANDON ) SAN JUAN GENERATING STATION UNITS) 2 AND 3, ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES ) OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND ) NECESSITY FOR REPLACEMENT POWER) Case No. 13-00390-UT RESROUCES, ISSUANCE OF ACCOUNTING ) ORDERS AND DETERMINATION OF ) RELATED RATEMAKING PRINCIPLES AND) TREATMENT, ) ) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO, Applicant. ) ) ) ,) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL’S BRIEF IN CHIEF, filed on the 15th day of February, 2015, was electronically serve.__.__~d on the following parties: Benjamin Phillips PNM Resources, Inc. Albuquerque, NM 87158-0805 [email protected] Bradford Borman, Esq. PNM Resources, Inc. Albuquerque, NM 87158-0805 [email protected] Peter J. Gould, Esq. Post Office Box 34127 Santa Fe, NM 87594-4127 pgouldlaw@gmail:com Mark Fenton, Director PNM Resources, Inc. Albuquerque, NM 87158-1105 [email protected] Andrea Crane The Columbia Group Post Office Box 810 Georgetown, CT 06829 [email protected] Patrick T. Ortiz, Esq. Post Office Box 4160 Santa Fe, NM 87502-4160 [email protected] Nann M. Winter, Esq. Post Office Box 528 Albuquerque, NM 87103-0528 [email protected] Erin Overturf, Esq. Western Resource Advocates 2260 Baseline Rd., Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 [email protected] Steven S. Michel, Esq. Western Resource Advocates 409 East Palace Ave., Unit 2 Santa Fe, NM 87501 [email protected] Lisa Tormoen Hickey, Esq. 14 N. Sierra Madre, Suite A Colorado Springs, CO 80903 lisahicke¥@coloradolawvers.net Jim Dittmer Utilitech, Inc. 623 NE Saint Andrews Circle Lee’s Summit, MO 64064 j [email protected] Dahl Harris, Esq. 2753 Herradura Road Santa Fe, NM 87505 [email protected] Certificate of Service Utility Case No. 13-00390-UT 1 Donald E. Gruenemeyer, P.E. 100 East Main Cross St., Suite 300 Findlay, OH 45840-4889 [email protected] Charles F. Noble, Esq. 409 East Palace Ave., Unit 2 Santa Fe, NM 87501 [email protected] Louis W. Rose, Esq. Randy S. Bartell, Esq. Post Office Box 2307 Santa Fe, NM 87504-2307 [email protected] [email protected] Steve Gross, Esq. 40200 Truckee Airport Rd., Ste. One Truckee, CA 96161 [email protected] Martin R. Hopper Gen. Manager M-S-R Public Power Agency Post Office Box 4060 Modesto, CA 95352 [email protected] Daniel R. Dolan 3321 Candelaria, NE, #126 Albuquerque, NM 87107 dan(&Jobo.net Bruce Throne, Esq. 1440-B South St. Francis Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 [email protected] Michael I. Garcia, Esq. Bernalillo County Legal Dept. 520 Lomas Blvd., NW, 4th Floor Albuquerque, NM 87102 [email protected] Jeffrey H. Albright, Esq. 201 Third Street, NW, Suite 1950 Albuquerque, NM 87102 [email protected] Rachel Brown, Esq. Santa Fe County Attorney Office 102 Grant Avenue Santa Fe, NM 87501 [email protected] HAND-DELIVERED TO: Sandra Skogen, Esq. NMPRC General Counsel 1120 Paseo de Peralta Santa Fe, NM 87501 [email protected] HAND-DELIVERED TO: Dwight Lamberson NMPRC - Utility Division 1120 Paseo de Peralta Santa Fe, NM 87501 [email protected] HAND-DELIVERED TO: Anthony Sisneros NMPRC - Utility Division 1120 Paseo de Peralta Santa Fe, NM 87501 [email protected] HAND-DELIVERED TO: Nancy Bums, Esq. NMPRC Legal Division 1120 Paseo de Peralta Santa Fe, NM 87501 Nancy.burns(~. state.rim.us HAND-DELIVERED TO: Michael C. Smith, Esq. NMPRC - Utility Division 1120 Paseo de Peralta Santa Fe, NM 87501 Emaih Thomas Wander- [email protected] Michael Dirmeier - [email protected] Charles Kolberg - ckolberg(d, abcwna.org David Van Winkle - david(d, vw77.com Noah Long - [email protected] Camilla Feibelman - [email protected] Don Hancock- [email protected] Nellis Howard - nelliskhoward(d, sierraclub.org Mariel Nanasi - [email protected] Sarah Cottrell Propst - propst(-~interwest.org John W. Boyd [email protected] Josh Ewing - [email protected] Marcos Martinez mdmartinez(~santafenm.gov Nick Schiavo - naschiavo(~,santafenm.gov Charles Gunter- Charles.Gunter(_a, state.nm.us Bruno Carrara - bruno.carrara(d.state.nm.us Jay Kumar [email protected] Doug Gegax - d~egax(&nmsu.edu Certificate of Service Utility Case No. 13-00390-UT Tom Singer- singer(d, westemlaw.org Joseph A. Herz- iaherz(-~sawvel.com Glenda Murphy - gmurph¥(~.,westernresources.org Laura Sanchez- laura(&nmgreenchamber.com, and laura.e.sanchez(g, comcast.net John M. Stomp III - jstomp(&abcwua.org Rob Witwer- witwerr~,southwestgen.com David Rhodes - rhodesd(&southwestgen.com Susan Kery- sck(~,sheehansheehan.com Robb Hirsch - rhirsch~edlconsulting.us Maurice Brubaker - mbrubaker(~ consultbai.com Jim Dauphinais - idauphinais(~,consultbai.com Adam Baker- abaker(~,bakerlawoffice.net REIA ofNM - prcaction(&,reia-nm.org Vincent DeCesare- Vincent.decesare/~state.nm.us Jocelyn Tortes - Jocelyn.torres(d, state.nm.us Cydney Beadles - Cydne¥.beadles(&,state.nm.us Anthony Sisneros - Anthony.sisneros(&state.nm.us Jack Sidler- jack.sidler(~,state.nm.us Sandra Skogen - [email protected] 2 DATED this 15th day of January, 2015 NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE £~~~, MAWR ~EZ~t, ~/falegal Certificate of Service Utility Case No. 13-00390-UT 3