Yesterday the NM Supreme Court denied the petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed by New Energy Economy on behalf of a bipartisan group of 15 legislators in an effort to enforce one of the few Just Transition elements of the Energy Transition Act (ETA). The ETA required PNM to build up to 450MW of replacement power in the Central Consolidated School District (CCSD) to ensure that lost tax revenue and jobs from closure of the San Juan Generating Station would be replaced by new clean energy projects in the impacted community. As a result the District Superintendent Steve Carlson reports that “We are facing teacher shortages and potential school closures because they are not being held to account. A further delay until PNM’s new claim that it will apply for resources in CCSD in 2028 means that our children will bear the brunt of the energy transition in more ways than one.”
We were correct in our position - that PNM renamed their power needs as "summer peak" instead of what they were, "San Juan replacement power," to obfuscate and game the system for their own financial benefit, without regard to their prior commitments and obligations. The PRC fell for that gambit, arguing that no resource requested for approval in this docket met the criteria of a “replacement resource,” that it is uniquely qualified to apply its discretion to make such a determination, and that "replacement power" is a question of fact and a writ of mandamus can only be brought on the basis of undisputed facts.
PNM continues to argue that its obligations to the community under the ETA were fulfilled by the failed Rockmont solar project, which was intended to meet the ETA replacement power requirement but ultimately was never built. Using that logic perhaps PNM should forgive the debt of any families that attempted to pay their utility bill but had their check bounce. They tried right?? Or will PNM send them one of the 17,000 disconnect notices that go out per month?
The PRC agreed in their response to our filing that the PRC has a non-discretionary duty to apply the ETA, but that the ETA did not apply to this case and acknowledged: "the Final Order in this resource approval docket has no effect on PNM’s current or future obligations under the ETA’s location provisions."
Although we lost, we are hopeful that because of our efforts the PRC will pay attention to ensure that PNM’s promises to include energy projects in the CCSD in their next resource filing are fulfilled. Those promises, unfortunately, do not have the force of law, and the delayed investments are now and will continue having real impacts on the students and families in the San Juan community for multiple years.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
As former Commissioner Fischmann noted in his recent op-ed, this episode underlines the necessity of appointing a compliance officer to ensure that PNM follows the law. This failure to do right by a community that has been generating energy for PNM for 50 years is just the latest example of a monopoly utility ignoring both the law and ethical obligations when it profits their shareholders.
Comments