MINUTES OF THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION …nmprc.state.nm.us/docs/older docs/03-02-16 Minutes.pdf · david rochel, d/b/a d. rochel sons, ... #56713; roberto fraire,

MINUTES OF THECASE MANAGEMENT OPEN MEETING

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSIONMarch 2, 2016

TIME: 9:30 a. m. PLACE: PERA Building4th Floor Hearing Room1120 Paseo de PeraltaSanta F~, New Mexico 87501

A quorum was present as follows:

Members Present:Commissioner Valerie Espinoza, ChairpersonCommissioner Karen L. Montoya, Vice-ChairpersonCommissioner Lynda LovejoyCommissioner Patrick H. Lyons [telephonically]Commissioner Sandy Jones [telephonically]

Members Absent:

Staff Present:Andrea Delling, Acting Interim Chiefof StaffJudith Amer, Acting General CounselRussell Fisk, Associate General CounselBruno Carrara, Utility Division DirectorMarc Martinez, OGC EconomistBryan Brock, Transportation Division DirectorSandra Skogen, Legal DivisionCydney Beadles, Legal Division DirectorAvelino Gutierrez, Legal DivisionFidel Archuleta, Transportation Division

Others PresentCarl Boaz, Stenographer

CALL TO ORDER

The Case Management Open Meeting was scheduled at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to proper notice underNMSA 1978, 10-15-1(c), and the Commission’s Open Meeting Policy. Commissioner Valerie Espinoza,Chairperson, called the Case Management Open Meeting to order at 9:35 a.m., in the Fourth Floor HearingRoom, PERA Building, 1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa F~, New Mexico.

Minutes of the C~se Management Open Meeting March 2, 2016 Page 1

A copy of the sign-in sheet for the Case Management Open Meeting is incorporated herewith to theseminutes as Exhibit 1.

A copy of the Agenda for the Case Management Open meeting is incorporated herewith to theseminutes as Exhibit 2.

A copy of the Public Comment sign-in sheet for the Case Management Open Meeting is incorporatedherewith to these minutes as Exhibit 3.

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEISTATE PLEDGE

2. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS

There were no introductions.

3. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Commissioner Lyons asked to delete the executive session since two Commissioners were absent.

Commissioner Jones said he and Commissioner Lovejoy talked and they need another week on theethics code.

Commissioner Montoya moved to approve the agenda as amended excluding 8, 9 and 7, theResolution No. 2-17-17. Chairperson Espinoza seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote.

4. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES

¯ Minutes of Case Management Open Meeting of February 10, 2016

Commissioner Montoya moved to approve the minutes of February 10, 2016 as presented.Commissioner Lyons seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote.

5. CONSENT ACTION

A. Transportation Matter:

Min.utes of the Case Management Open Meeting March 2, 2016, Page 2

1) 16-00008-TR-M IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF DIGNITY AND PRIDE CHARTERAND LIMO, LLC, FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ITS CERTIFICATE TO PROVIDEGENERAL SHUTTLE SERVICE(Judith Amer) Order

Commissioner Lovejoy moved to approve the order for 16-00008-TR-M. Chairperson Espinozaseconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote. So Ordered.

6. PUBLIC HEARING

The Commission went on the record at 9:39 a.m. The proceedings of the Public Hearing weretranscribed by a court reporter and are not part of these minutes.

16-00012.TR.EN IN THE MATTER OF THE REVOCATION OF OPERATING AUTHORITIES FORFAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION, TRANSPORTATIONDIVISION, PETITIONERV.

DAVID ROCHEL, D/B/A D. ROCHEL SONS,#56715; SAUL JASSO, D/B/A E&D TRUCKING, 3#56704; VERONICAYBARRA, DIB/A ESPA~OLA TOWING, #56567; AMERICA’S OILFIELDSERVICES, LLC, #56816; HEBISON ENTERPRISES, LLC, #45018; DEADLINETRANSPORT, LLC, #56713; ROBERTO FRAIRE, D/BIA F&F TRUCKING,#56715; BENCO HOT OILER, LLC, #56615; JEMEZ MOUNTAINS TOWING &OFF-ROAD RECOVERY, LLC, #56064; HOBBS WRECKER SERVICE, LLC,#54436; VICTOR MAGALLANES SR. DIB/A VJ TRUCKING, #54951;ARMENDARIZ TRUCKING, LLC, #56758; J&M OILFIELD SERVICE, LLC,#56549; HBFMGB ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, #56641; CRAIG D. NELSON,ULTRA TRUCKING #56463; KELLY TRANSPORT, LLC, #56497; OSCALDORODRIGUEZ, D/BIA 0 RODRIGUEZ TRUCKING; #56132; JESSE FLORESTRUCKING, LLC, #56712; MORENO ENTERPRISES, LLC, D/B/A TRIPLE JTRUCKING, #55882; GUADALUPE GONZALES, DIB/A G GONZALESTRUCKING, #54949; ROBERTO MUI~OZ, DIB/A AGS TRUCKING, #56788;HERMAN ARMIJO, WAGON WHEEL, #850, RESPONDENTS.

The Commission ended the public hearing and returned to regular open session at 9:50 a.m.

REGULAR ACTION AND DISCUSSION

A. Transportation Matters:

Minutes of the Case Management Open Meeting ~arch 2, 2016 Page 3

2) 16-00012-TR-EN IN THE MATTER OF THE REVOCATION OF OPERATING AUTHORITIES FORFAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION, TRANSPORTATIONDIVISION, PETITIONER,V.DAVID ROCHEL, DIB/A D. ROCHEL SONS, #56715; SAUL JASSO, D/BIA E&DTRUCKING, 3#56704; VERONICA YBARRA, DIB/A ESPAI;IOLA TOWING,#56567; AMERICA’S OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, #56816; HEBISONENTERPRISES, LLC, #45018; DEADLINE TRANSPORT, LLC, #56713;ROBERTO FRAIRE, D/B/A F&F TRUCKING, #56715; BENCO HOT OILER,LLC, #56615; JEMEZ MOUNTAINS TOWING & OFF-ROAD RECOVERY, LLC,#56064; HOBBS WRECKER SERVICE, LLC, #54436; VICTOR MAGALLANESSR. D/B/A VJ TRUCKING, #54951; ARMENDARIZ TRUCKING, LLC, #56758;J&i OILFIELD SERVICE, LLC, #56549; HBFMGB ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,#56641; CRAIG D. NELSON, ULTRA TRUCKING #56463; KELLYTRANSPORT, LLC, #56497; OSCALDO RODRIGUEZ, D/BIA 0 RODRIGUEZTRUCKING; #56132; JESSE FLORES TRUCKING, LLC, #56712; MORENOENTERPRISES, LLC, DIB/A TRIPLE J TRUCKING, #55882; GUADALUPEGONZALES, D/BIA G GONZALES TRUCKING, #54949; ROBERTO MU~OZ,DIBIA AGS TRUCKING, #56788; HERMAN ARMIJO, WAGON WHEEL, #850,RESPONDENTS.(Judith Amer) Order

Ms. Amer recommended approving the order to revoke operating authority for those listed in Exhibit 2.

Commissioner Montoya moved to adopt the order. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion.

Commissioner Lovejoy pointed out that for some of those with disconnected phones might also havechanged addresses. She asked how the Staff knew they received any notice.

Mr. Gutierrez said they probably were no longer in business with no phone and not at the listedaddress. But they are required to notify the PRC if they moved.

The motion passed by majority (3-2) voice vote with Chairperson Espinoza and CommissionerLovejoy dissenting, So Ordered,

3) 15-00361-TR-M IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF GIANT CAB, INC., DIBIA GIANTCAB COMPANY FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ITS CERTIFICATE TO PROVIDEGENERAL TAXICAB SERVICE.(Michael Smith) Order

Minutes of the Case Management Op~en Meeting March 2, 2016 ,Page 4

Mr. Smith presented information regarding this matter to the Commission. Giant Cab had filed anapplication to amend its operating authority which was subject to a settlement agreement with Yellow Cab.The applicant is now seeking the ability to expand its service area and be free of those restrictions. YellowCab filed outside of the allowed period for protests as the Commission determined it untimely.

The Commission approved the application and Yellow Cab then filed for reconsideration. They areseeking to intervene and the Commission has rules on intervention for them to state their interest in thecase. The substance of Yellow Cab’s basis for intervening is that the Commission’s order was defective.

Mr. Smith said his proposed order before the Commission is to deny their motion. The statute providesa specific process and that process overrides any general process the Commission has in other cases.

As a full service carrier, Yellow Cab had an absolute right to stop the process and require a hearing butthat necessitated a timely intervention and that did not happen.

The other part of Yellow Cab’s argument was that in a settlement agreement, the Commission was notallowed to amend the agreement but that argument fails because that agreement could be submitted to acourt of law but they chose instead to have the Commission approve it. With any agreement theCommission accepts, we cannot enforce alterations that don’t comply with the statute.

Such agreements cannot preclude Giant from ever changing its authority under laws that regulate theindustry. Furthermore, Yellow Cab was not prejudiced because they had an opportunity to protest timely.

At the time the Commission approved Giant Cab’s application, it stated that Giant was free to comebefore the Commission later to change the terms. That was in the testimony by the Transportation DivisionDirector. Yellow Cab was present at the hearing and never gave an objection.

Mr. Smith’s order would deny Yellow Cab’s motion for reconsideration.

Commissioner Jones moved to approve the order. Commissioner Montoya and CommissionerLyons seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote. So Ordered.

Chairperson Espinoza said she felt it was not a level playing field with the other cabs.

4)

B. Utility Matters:

15-00375-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING OF PROPOSED NEW RATES BY KITCARSON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.KIT CARSON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., APPLICANT(Judith Amer) Order

Minutes of the Case Management Open Meeting March 2, 2016 Page 5

Ms. Amer presented information regarding this matter to the Commission. The matter comes beforethe Commission on a motion for reconsideration and rehearing by Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (KCEC)filed on February 11, 2016 of their request for a rate increase.

Many responses have been filed in protest and Ms. Amer offered to go through them all if theCommission wished.

On December 3, 2015, KCEC filed Advice Notice No. 60 for a rate increase.

On December 23, 2015, the Commission suspended the proposed rates and ordered KCEC to file itsobjections to the Protests by December 29, 2015 and ordered Staff to file its determinations as to thenumber of valid, timely protests also by December 29, 2015.

On December 29, 2015, Staff filed its determination which stated that at least 63 valid protests of theproposed residential rates had been timely filed and were in substantial compliance with Rule 540.11.

On December 29, 2015, KCEC filed a Supplemental Response to Protests Against Proposed RateAdjustment and attached a list to that of 102 protests that for various reasons, they thought were not valid.

On January 20, 2015, at a very long hearing, the Commission entered its Order in this matter whichordered continued suspension of the rates and ordered KCEC to file a complete rate application within onemonth that would include cost of service studies. KCEC may present alternative rate designs, including aninverted block methodology, for the residential, or any other, class of customers.

In that initial Order the Commission concluded that at least 25 protests from members of the residentialclass that substantially complied with the Rule 540.11 and 540.12. And that they expressed just cause toreview the proposed rates. And in that order, the Commission said it would appoint a Hearing Examiner tohold a hearing regarding whether the rates are just and reasonable rates.

On February 8, 2016, the Commission appointed Elizabeth Hurst as the Hearing Examiner in thismatter.

Between January 14, 2016 and February 10, 2016, KCEC filed the following notices of withdrawal ofprotest of seven Coop members, two of whom had the same address.

On February 11, 2016, KCEC filed its Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration. It specificallyrequested the Commission identify the specific valid protest upon which it relied in determining there were asufficient number of protests (at least 25 protests from members of the residential class), and identify theone or more grounds of the protest upon which it relied to determine just cause existed to continue thesuspension and investigation of rates proposed in Advice Notice No. 60. KCEC argued that theCommission should not count protests that were filed prior to the filing of Advice Notice No. 60 onDecember 3, 2015.


On February 12, 2016, KCEC filed a motion to narrow the scope of the rate headng. They requestedthat the Commission limit the scope of the rate hearing to the specific issues identified in the residentialcustomer class’ protests. They argued that the rate hearing cannot be a general rate case proceeding thatreviews all issues that any member, intervener or Staff may want to explore. KCEC requested that the ratecase be limited to only the grounds of the protests which the Commission determined provided just causefor review of Kit Carson’s proposed rates were particularly identified as: 1) KCEC’s proposed elimination ofthe inverted block structure for residential rates, and 2) the proposed increase to the fixed customer chargeby a greater relative percentage than the energy charge.

On February 18, 2016, Staff filed a response to KCEC’s motion for rehearing and reconsideration inwhich it took no position but did agree with the initial order that there were at least 25 valid protests.

On February 16, 2016, Interveners Peggy Nelson and Jerome Lucero, and on February 24, 2016,Intervener Link Summers, filed responses to KCEC’s request for rehearing and reconsideration in whichthey requested that the PRC deny KCEC’s request for rehearing and reconsideration and determine that allprotests filed in advance of KCEC’s filing of Advice Notice No. 60 are valid as far as the date of filing isconcerned.

Interveners Peggy Nelson and Link Sommer filed their Responses to KCEC’s Motion to Narrow theScope of Rate Hearing requesting that KCEC’s Motion be denied because many of the protests have madethe claim that KCEC has been mismanaged and/or that projects other than the provision of electricity to itsmembers has adversely affected the financial health of KCEC. Ms. Nelson stated that there are allegationsthat the finances of various projects overlap and funds have been comingled; the electric companyresources and assets have been made collateral for the Coop’s fiber-optic project; all to the detriment of themembers of KCEC. In addition to other grounds for protest, all of these issues must be explored and theburden of proof should be on KCEC to show that its handling of electrical services is beneficial and notharmful.

Mr. Sommer specifically stated that there has been no full, independently audited accounting to itsmembership or PRC and that the finances of KCEC’s various affiliated business organizations overlap andfunds have been co-mingled with electric services.

On February 24, 2016, Staff filed its response to KCEC’s Motion to narrow the scope of rate hearing.

Ms. Amer recommended that the proposed order would deny the Motion for rehearing and approve thereconsideration. With reconsideration, she recommended, in accord with Rule 540.11 and the statute, thatearly filing of protests is considered valid and no later than 20 days after filing. With just cause, New Mexicolaw dictates that substance controls, not form. Substantial compliance is the standard. It is also the pastpractice of the Commission. She quoted from it that consumers are not expected to know special terms.

In the review, there were 88 timely valid protests out of total 110. Nine were withdrawn and three werenot valid and eight were untimely. That leaves 88 valid protests.


Regarding KCEC’s motion to limit the scope of the hearing, the proposed order recommends that if theCommission grants the hearing, that it be limited to residential class with six questions, five of which arealmost identical to KCEC’s 5 questions. The sixth would be, "Is the amount of cost allocated to residentialcustomers just and reasonable?"

The order finds at least 25 protests are valid and limited to residential class and whether the invertedblock rate design does harm to those in residential class who are low users and conserve energy and thedesign discourages conservation and renewable sources.

Commissioner Montoya asked if everyone is aware of who those are. Do we have that questionanymore?

Ms. Amer said Exhibit A gives the complete list.

Commissioner Montoya asked if the list was distributed to all parties.

Ms. Amer said no; it is attached to the order.

Commissioner Montoya asked if everyone now agrees there are 88 valid protests.

Ms. Amer didn’t think KCEC agreed. They attached the 110 list and it says whether they are valid ornot. She stated that they are valid.

Commissioner Jones thought Commissioner Montoya’s question is whether that the list of names thatwere found valid was forwarded to KCEC.

Ms. Amer said the short answer is no. Staff filed their list in the record two days ago.

Commissioner Jones thought he recalled a request for those names by KCEC during the hearing. Heasked if there is any reason why we would not give that list to KCEC.

Ms. Amer agreed they should make that list available and is the reason why it was attached to theorder.

Mr. Smith reminded the Commission that Rick Blumenfeld didn’t have the 33 names available. So thatis what would be remedied in Ms. Amer’s order. Staff was working off of protests that were filed with theCommission. So Ms. Amer went back to fix that. And she came out with a larger number.

Commissioner Jones asked if KCEC asked Staff or OGC at any time after the hearing for the list ofnames that Mr. Blumenfeld found valid.

Ms. Amer said they did and the list is in this order.


Commissioner Jones said this irks him. He questioned why it has to go through a motion to give themthe names. It isn’t a secret. The Commission should just give it to them. It seems to be a barrier that didnot need to come up today.

Ms. Amer agreed. She did think that process is overly cumbersome and the list should have beenprovided on January 20t~.

Commissioner Montoya said the Commission asked General Counsel to share the names and there isa provision for KCEC to know who the protestors are and perhaps discuss and resolve prior to goingforward. But we are doing that while we are going forward.

Commissioner Jones moved to approve the order. Commissioner Lyons seconded the motion.

Commissioner Lovejoy asked if there weren’t standard procedures for dealing with protests. They havea form. She asked if the protests come through the coop or directly to the Commission.

Ms. Amer said they come in a variety of forms. There is a protest form and our rules say what a protestneeds to have. A number of them were received by the PRC through email. They were not on the form.But they had substantial compliance.

Commissioner Lovejoy asked regarding the inverted block rate design if there is another type of ratedesign that they wanted.

Ms. Amer said KCEC is proposing to eliminate the inverted block rate design with a greater fixedmonthly charge.

Chairperson Espinoza asked then if 110 protests were filed.

Ms. Amer agreed. But when looking at KCEC’s list, there were some names that were not included ine-docket - a handful of people who filed with them but had not made it to e-docket.

Chairperson Espinoza asked if that list included those that were valid and those that were invalid.

Ms. Amer agreed.

Chairperson Espinoza asked then why it is so important for them to know the 88 that were valid. Theirlist was on the web site.

Ms. Amer said that was filed with their response. They had decided the eady ones were invalid. Theyhad the same access to e-docket that we have.

Chairperson Espinoza asked if there were any in the list that were business class.


Ms. Amer said one chimney sweep company was on the list.

Chairperson Espinoza noted that the nine that withdrew had one that was a duplicate.

Ms. Amer said that two withdrawals had no email but the majority were filed on the withdrawal form andfiled by the KCEC attorney but they were not signed by the actual customer. She clarified that the 88 total isafter subtracting the withdrawals and she subtracted out one of the two in the same household. They wereall residential and gave valid reasons for the protest. They included whether the service cost allocation isjust and reasonable as well as the inverted block structure, fixed monthly charges and if there are costsattributable only to electric service business.

The motion to approve the order passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote. So Ordered.

5) 15-00127-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF EL PASO ELECTRIC COMPANYFOR REVISION OF ITS RETAIL ELECTRIC RATES PURSUANT TO ADVICENOTICE NO. 236.(Russell Fisk) Order

Mr. Fisk presented information to the Commission concerning this matter. It comes before theCommission on motion by the City of Las Cruces, DoSa Ana County and the AG called Expedited JointMotion to Remand Recommended Decision for Clarification and Reconsideration and to Stay the Filing ofExceptions.

On February 19, 2016, the Moving Parties filed the Joint Motion. The Moving Parties request that theCommission remand the RD to the Hearing Examiner for clarification of the recommended revenuerequirement and for reconsideration of the recommended class allocation of revenues based oninconsistencies between the text of the RD and the exhibits to that RD.

The Moving Parties allege that the four exhibits to the RD do disclose in detail the rates that theHearing Examiner proposes be adopted and approved by the Commission, but that the RD contains noexhibit or table summarizing the calculation of the total revenue requirement recommended by the HearingExaminer. They also allege that there is a $176,224 discrepancy between the proof of revenue total inExhibit B, Part 2 of the RD and the total proposed base rate revenues in another exhibit.

There is a third issue they raised. They allege that the proposed distribution of base revenues by rateclass is at odds with the RD’s discussion of the rate design principle of gradualism. Specifically, the MovingParties argue that the recommended 9.0% increase in revenues for the residential rate class, whencompared to "overall rates that are largely stable," indicates an impact on the residential class "thatcertainly approaches rate shock."

The Moving Parties also requested that the Commission stay the deadlines for filing of exceptions tothe RD and responses to exceptions pending the issuance of an amended RD on remand.


The Moving Parties state in the Joint Motion that EPE opposes the motion; that Staff had not, at thetime the Joint Motion was filed, but later opposed the motion; that intervener Merrie Lee Soules supportsthe motion and other interveners had taken no position.

On February 23, 2016, EPE filed its Response to Joint Motion, arguing that the Commission shoulddeny the Joint Motion. EPE argues that the "extraordinary relief" that would "bypass Exceptions" and wouldbe "improper, unfair, and would disregard the very procedures ordered in this case." EPE further allegesthat the Moving Parties "do not like the rate design or class revenue distribution in the RD," which areissues that should be addressed in exceptions.

EPE also takes issue with the Moving Parties’ claim that the RD fails to provide the calculation of thetotal revenue requirement. EPE states that the RD does calculate the total revenue requirement. EPEalso said they provided the parties with working electronic versions of its calculation model so parties couldobtain more detailed information by inputting the final numbers.

On February 24, 2016, Staff filed its Response to Joint Motion, opposing the Joint Motion, saying it isprocedurally improper. Staff pointed to the Commission’s rule for exceptions and responses to exceptions,and said that rule provides for due process with regard to any challenges to RDs "without causing unduedelay." Staff alleges that, if granted, the Motion would only serve to delay the resolution of the case. Staffstates that the Hearing Examiner has fulfilled her responsibility to issue a RD.

Staff further argues that the Moving Parties’ request for additional documents developed by theClassified Adjustment Committee (appointed by the HE) can be satisfied without a remand to the HearingExaminer. Staff recommends that the Commission issue a bench request to the members of theCommission if it considers such disclosure to be warranted.

On February 24, 2016, the Hearing Examiner issued and filed an Errata Notice to RD. The ErrataNotice states that the Hearing Examiner inadvertently omitted "Exhibit C" from the exhibits attached to theRD. Exhibit C is a Revenue Requirement Summary provided by EPE witness James Schichtl to his fellowCAC members.

The proposed order would deny the Joint Motion, finding that it is procedurally improper. The JointMotion contravenes Commission Rule 1.2.2.37 NMAC by attempting to bypass exception procedures. Asnoted by Staff, the exceptions procedure provides due process with regard to challenges to RDs whileavoiding undue delay. The exceptions procedure also provides, as noted by Staff, a predictable timetablefor the parties and the Commission. The remand requested in the Joint Motion would interfere with thisprocess. Moreover, the remand requested in the Joint Motion would raise the possibility of unfairprocedural advantage to the Moving Parties vis-a-vis the other parties to the case.

The proposed order would state that the Commission agrees with Staff that the Hearing Examiner hasfulfilled her responsibility to issue an RD under the Commission’s rules. To the extent that any parties


believe that there are any deficiencies in the RD, such alleged deficiencies should be addressed inexceptions.

The Errata Notice issued by the Hearing Examiner provides additional calculation information that maybe helpful to the Moving Parties but the RD was already sufficient for the proper exceptions to be filed.Accordingly, he recommended that the Commission not issue a bench request to the members of the CAC,as was conditionally recommended by Staff. That information is not needed for this purpose.

Under the proposed order, the motion for stay is moot.

Commissioner Jones asked if any exceptions were filed.

Mr. Fisk said he didn’t see any from DoSa Ana County but did from the City of Las Cruces and the AG.

Commissioner Jones asked, if the Commission adopts the order today and then decides moreresponses are needed, whether the Commission could do that at any point before deciding the case.

Mr. Fisk agreed.

Commissioner Jones explained that he didn’t want to tie their hands. The Commission needs to movethe case along. In essence, the order is good to move it along.

Commissioner Lovejoy said the extraordinary relief motions were filed and she would like to start withthem by early Monday morning but they seem to come in piecemeal and that makes her review verydifficult when they come in late Tuesday afternoon. It is extraordinarily difficult because this isextraordinary relief being requested.

Commissioner Jones moved to approve the order. Commissioner Montoya and CommissionerLyons seconded the motion.

Mr. Smith, in response to Commissioner Jones that to the extent he raised the issue of whether partiescould still file motions or exceptions, it would require reopening the case.

Commissioner Jones clarified that after the Commission reviews the responses, there might be othermotions filed. That door is still open. That is what he wanted to be sure of. That was his only concern andhe asked if that was correct.

Mr. Fisk said yes.

The motion passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote. So Ordered.


6) 15-00261-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OFNEW MEXICO FOR REVISION OF ITS RETAIL ELECTRIC RATES PURSUANTTO ADVICE NOTICE NO. 513. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEWMEXICO, Applicant.(Michael Smith) Order

Mr. Smith presented information to the Commission regarding this matter. He said this is in response tosupplemental testimony filed by PNM on a bench request.

The concerns that were raised were about the changed schedule. Ms. Glick is in the hospital thismorning because her husband is having brain surgery and she has apologized for not being here.

Chairperson Espinoza understood her family needs and the workload of the staff so no apology isnecessary.

Commissioner Lovejoy said she advised Ms. Glick to slow down on these matters.

Chairperson Espinoza asked if PNM is not sure what the expense would be.

Mr. Smith said the testimony did not address whether they were capable of that.

The issue was raised in PNM’s recent renewable energy plan case (13-00166-UT), which consideredwhether PNM’s Exempt and Large Capped Customers receive a so-called "disproportionate avoided fuelbenefit" (DAFB). The Hearing Examiner recommended eliminating the DAFB by adjusting PNM’sRenewable Rider.

The Commission recognized that PNM currently includes the sale of kWhs generated by renewableenergy in the FPPCAC calculation to determine the average cost of fuel on a per kWh basis for all PNMcustomers. This method of calculating the average fuel cost is incorrect because kWhs generated by mostrenewable energy uses no fuel and therefore has no fuel cost associated with its generation; and theexempt customers (UNM, ABCWUA) are exempt from paying for any renewable energy cost and there is astatutory limit on how much cost that large industrial capped customers may be required to pay for PNM’scompliance to meet the utility’s RPS requirement delineated in the Renewable Energy Act.

By including the kWhs generated by renewable energy in its FPPCAC calculation to determine itsaverage cost of fuel on a per kWh basis for all PNM customers, PNM incorrectly derives and assesses anincorrect average fuel cost per kWh that is lower than appropriate.

PNM then applies this lower, incorrect average fuel cost to each customer’s entire kWh usage tocalculate all customer bills and as a result it is inappropriately recovering its fuel costs from all of itscustomers. More specifically, this misallocation and its application result in understated bills for customersthat are exempt from paying for any renewable energy cost for PNM’s compliance, understated bills forcustomers that have a statutory limit on how much cost they may be required to pay (capped) for


renewable energy cost for PNM’s compliance, and overstated bills for the remaining customers (e.g.,residential customers and small business customers) that are neither exempt or statutorily limited.

The other potential problem the Commission identified is that PNM is recovering procurement costs forthe New Mexico Wind Energy Center (NMWEC) through its FPPCAC, rather than through its RenewableRider, which is how it collects the costs of its other renewable procurements.

As a result, the Commission took two actions. The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause inCase No. 16-00016-UT ordering PNM to respond to a list of questions by May 3, 2016, and ordered Staff torespond by July 17, 2016. The Commission’s intent was to gather information and consider adjustments toPNM’s FPPCAC. No responses have been filed yet in that case.

Secondly, the Commission issued a Bench Request to PNM in the current rate case (15-00261) onFebruary 10, 2016, requiring PNM to file supplemental testimony addressing potential base fuel costissues. Specifically, the Commission ordered PNM to address its current calculation of base fuel cost in itsbase rates as it relates to: 1) PNM’s apparent inclusion of sales of kWh generated with renewable energy inits FPPCAC; and 2) PNM’s inclusion of NMWEC costs in its FPPCAC.

PNM filed Supplemental Testimony in this rate case on February 24, 2016. In response to theCommission’s two specific questions, PNM’s testimony by Gerard Ortiz confirmed that PNM includes salesof kWh generated with renewable energy in its FPPCAC; and that PNM recovers NMWEC procurementcosts through its FPPCAC.

Notwithstanding these acknowledgments, Mr. Ortiz testified that including sales of kWh generated withrenewable energy in PNM’s FPPCAC does not present any problems in terms of over or under-recovery offuel costs from customers and would not affect the total amount billed.

PNM’s testimony is problematic in that PNM addresses only the effect on its own bottom line, not thefairness of its calculations to PNM ratepayers. While PNM’s revenues would be the same if it corrected itscalculations, the amount charged to each of its customers would change. Under PNM’s current method ofcalculating its FPPCAC, certain PNM customer classes are paying too much for fuel, while other customerclasses are not paying enough for fuel.

The current concern and reason for bringing this matter to the Commission is PNM’s assertion that it isimpossible, using PNM’s current billing system, to correct PNM’s calculation of its FPPCAC by removingthe FPPCAC for sales of kWh generated with renewable energy. According to PNM, to do what theCommission has requested would require charging two different energy rates to its customers: one for kWhgenerated by renewable energy and one for kWh generated by non-renewable energy. PNM’s billingsystem would not allow PNM to bill the base fuel charge and FPPCAC factor on only a portion of acustomer’s energy usage. Mr. Ortiz says that adding such capability to PNM’s billing system would takeconsiderable time and expense. But, he does not say how much time and how much expense.

Chairperson Espinoza asked if PNM is not sure what the expense would be.


Mr. Smith said the testimony did not address whether they were capable of that.

Mr. Smith said the Commission should not accept PNM’s assertion that it cannot correct its FPPCACcalculations because PNM’s billing system cannot bill more than one base energy charge and cannot billthe FPPCAC factor on only a portion of a customer’s energy use. PNM’s current method of calculating itsFPPCAC does not serve the goal of providing reasonable and proper service at fair, just and reasonablerates to all customer classes, which would be cause for the Commission to eliminate PNM’s FPPCAC.Furthermore, PNM’s testimony does not address whether there is any way PNM can eliminate sales of kWhgenerated by renewable energy from total sales in the FPPCAC calculation in a way that might not requirechanging PNM’s billing system.

A true up method would be similar to their methods used elsewhere. It would require additionaltestimony on renewable costs. It would also require removal of wind center expenses from the totalcalculations.

The current schedule has the hearing on March 14. Ms. Glick was concerned about all of them gettingready for this short date. He bdefly listed the tasks involved.

So the order would suspend rates for one more month and require supplemental testimony. It alsorecommends a new schedule be set. The order would also order PNM to explain why they can’t make thechange and what is required in the software to make the change. Under the present fuel clause, it doesn’tassure fair and reasonable charges.

PNM provided two examples and the Commission should have this information before revising therates.

There is an additional filing of testimony submitted by PNM that NMIEC challenged it. Their position isthat the rate increase is closer to 19.8% and has a 25% impact on residential rates. So there is an issue asto what the actual percentage is. Mr. Smith couldn’t say which is accurate.

Commissioner Jones said he is familiar with this. There were questions on the allocation of fuel ratesand those classes. Staff and OGC and HE have captured the important questions. He was not sure theextension was a month but that sounds reasonable.

Chairperson Espinoza asked if because it is scheduled on March 14, that Ms. Glick had questions onresources.

Mr. Smith clarified that the concern was under the current process, the resources are the parties’resources and the limited time to get ready for the hearing. Substantial issues need to be resolved. Thetestimony was only filed last week and has a significant issue to working through it,

Commissioner Montoya thanked the OGC for their work to help the Commission meet other deadlines.


Chairperson Espinoza didn’t think it should be so hard to put a billing system into place.

Mr. Smith said that is included in this order.

Commissioner Lovejoy pointed out that PNM did not respond to the two issues raised in thesupplemental testimony. They are saying the fuel clause calculation doesn’t present any problems. Shequestioned how they could say it is not problematic. She asked if Mr. Smith expected PNM to respond tothat.

Mr. Smith didn’t expect them to respond differently. He just needed the additional information andassuming it cannot be done that way, whether the alternative to address the fuel clause would be anacceptable alternative.

Commissioner Jones moved to approve the order. Commissioner Lyons seconded the motionand it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote. So Ordered.

C. Miscellaneous

7) Undocketed RESOLUTION NO. 2-17-17 DEVELOPMENT OF A CODE OF ETHICS FORCOMMISSIONERS AND REQUESTING LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL SERVICESASSIGN TO THE SELECTED INTERIM COMMITTEE FOR ASSISTANCE INTHE FORMULATION OF A CODE OF ETHICS SPECIFIC TO A UTILITYREGULATORY COMMISSION(Michael Smith)

This item was deleted under Approval of Agenda.

8) Undocketed CREATE STANDARD PROCEDURES/POLICY FOR COMMISSION PRESSRELEASES BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER(Commissioner Lynda Lovejoy)

Commissioner Lovejoy asked Ms. Delling and Mr. Padilla to work together on standard procedures forpress releases that go out as Commission action, including when contacted. She was aware of them goingout and was asked for a comment. The standard is simply to treat all Commissioners equally and to makesure that their comments are presented in a fair and balanced manner.

Commissioner Montoya supported that.

Commissioner Lovejoy asked about time whether two weeks would be sufficient.


Ms. Delling agreed.

Commissioner Lyons and Commissioner Jones had no problem with that.

Chairperson Espinoza said they will bring it back, then.

=EXECUTIVE CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO NMSA 1978, SECTION 10-15-1(H)(2) TODISCUSS LIMITED PERSONNEL MATTER: SELECTION OF CHIEF OF STAFF AND OGCGENERAL COUNSEL

This item was removed from the agenda.

=POSSIBLE ACTION: SELECTION OF CHIEF OF STAFF AND OGC GENERAL COUNSEL

This item was removed from the agenda.

10. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE:

¯ SM87 - YOU MEAN I HAVE TO PAY FOR TOWING? SERIOUSLY?

Mr. Brock said this is a short memorial but issues are presented. When law enforcement needs astolen vehicle picked up and calls a tow company who tows the vehicle to either the police yard or the towcompany’s storage and then when the rightful owner comes, they have to pay for the tow and storagecharges.

So Senator Ortiz y Pino will have an interim committee deal with it. The PRC was not asked to be partof this discussion but we could reach out to provide some expertise.

The towing company will take the position that they need to be reimbursed for their expenses. Thereare some counties that have public safety tows, set up for the type of tows we are talking about. In mostcases, the Law Enforcement Entity pays reduced charges so citizen doesn’t have to pay it. So is it shiftedto the government or laid on the owner.

The Legislature could change the law and prohibit tow companies from being paid for these tows or theCommission could do it through rules.

Chairperson Espinoza asked how the owner is notified of the tow.


Mr. Brock said first, the tow company has to notify MVD and then has to notify the owner. If lawenforcement is called, they also have a responsibility through the VIN number to reach the owner and putthem together quickly.

Chairperson Espinoza added that the lost time costs more in storage fees. She liked the idea andasked if Mr. Brock could pursue that with the Senator.

Mr. Brock agreed.

Commissioner Lovejoy suggested if Mr. Brock would get in touch with Gerald Ortiz y Pino to suggest arule making to him.

Commissioner Jones agreed with that.

Chairperson Espinoza said the Commission would just help him get there.

Mr. Brock said he would converse with him and draft a memo on the conversation to share with theCommission.

11. PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no public comments.

12. COMMUNICATIONS WITH ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, MICHAEL C. SMITH

There were no communications with Acting General Counsel.

13. COMMUNICATIONS WITH INTERIM ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, ANDREA DELLING

¯ CONTRACTED HUMAN RESOURCES LAWYER UPDATE

Ms. Delling said she followed up on contacts with lawyers and shared a handout. What she found wasin discussion internally that if we have any complaints with liability, that they go to Risk Management andpay for the attorney who is contracted. She also inquired with GSD and internally to have the ability for locallegal support. None of the companies have a retainer fee. She mentioned some of the rates for qualifiedlocal attorneys.

There were no questions.


Ms. Delling said this is for the Commission’s information. If we proceed, we should list the probableload.

Commissioner Montoya asked to her to bring it up next week when Commissioner Jones andCommissioner Lyons are present. She thought it was a good idea because it takes away the conflict ofinterest. She saw there was some conflict of interest with Patrick L6pez handling the HR issues andactually being an attorney for the Legal Division. She didn’t think the PRC has the capability now to hiresomeone to do it because of the money shortage.

Commissioner Jones agreed with that.

Chairperson Espinoza thought all of the executive assistants got the memo from Ms. Glick in testimonyof PNM rates that staff is unable to comply with the requirements and cannot do it because they don’t havethe model. Right now we don’t have an economic analyst and still want to bring in an attorney. Some ofthem have had cases before the Commission. She recognized the names proposed as ones who have hadcases here. To hire an HR attorney is something she would not support.

Ms. Delling said she had two other items. The first is the transformer replacement. She asked if theCommission would like to set the time for shutdown on April 1.

Commissioner Montoya and Commissioner Lovejoy suggested waiting until all Commissioners werepresent.

Chairperson Espinoza said okay and would support 12:00 noon.

Ms. Delling said the second was the ongoing discussion with SPO and DFA on the soft hiring freeze.They are saying at this point there is no hiring freeze but are working to halt those that are not crucial. Shediscussed hiring for those posted and those being interviewed as of yesterday for our priorities. She gave alist of those priorities to the Commissioners and Mr. Smith. In proceeding, she said these are the mostimmediate needs and they would start advertising for them.

14. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Carrara asked regarding the building closure, what to do if staff have some things that are due onApril 1.

Chairperson Espinoza said the Commission will decide that at the open meeting next Wednesday.

15 ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

Minutes of the Case Management Open Meeting March 2, 2016 Page !9

ATTEST:

Carl Boaz, Stenographer

APPROVED:

-’RIE ESPINOZA, IPERSON

KAREN eONTOYA, VICE (~HAIRPERSO~/-

ISATRICK H. LYONS, COMMI~IIONER

SAND? JONES;CO M~SIONER


NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

OPEN ,,MEETING: CASE ~MANAGEMENT MEETINGDate: ~ys~ ~, ~0~

NAME COMPANY NAME PHONE N~ER

676--77t~- ~/q5

Thauk you for att~ding this meeting.

EXHIBIT 1PRC - March 2, 2016

NEW MEXi~ pUBUt~. REGUlaTION ~MMISSION

OPEN MEETING: CASE MANAGEMENT MEETINGWednesday, March 2, 2016

9:~ a.m.PERA BuiMing, 4~ Floor Hearing Room

1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, NM 87501

AGENDA

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/STATE PLEDGE

INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES¯ Minutes of ~ Management Open Meeting of February 10, 2016

CONSENT ACTION

UtiBty Matters:

NONE

Be

1)

Transportation Matter:.

16-00008-TR-MJudith Amer

IN THE ’MA:~’ER OF THE APPUCATION OFDIGNITY AND PRIDE CHARTER AND UMO, LLC,FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ITS CERTIFICATE TOPROVIDE GENERAL SHUTTLE SERVICE

Open Meeting: Case Management Meeting AgendaWednesday, March 2, 2016 ,Pagelof7 EXHIBIT 2

PRC - March 2, 2016

6. PUBUC

CASE NO. 16-00012-TR-ENAvelino GutierrezFidel Archuleta

IN THE MATTER OF THE REVOCATION OF OPERATING AUTHORITIES FOR FAILURE TOCOMPLY WITH FiNANCiAL RESPONSIBiUTY REqUiREMENTS

NEW MEXICO PUBUC REGULATION COMMISSION, TRANSPORTATION DIVISION,

PETITIONER,

DAVID ROCHEL, D/B/A D. ROCHEL SONS, #56715; SAUL JASSO, D/B/A E & DTRUCKING, #56704 ; VERONICA YBARRA, D/B/A ESPANOLA TOWING, #565o’7;AMERICA’S OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, #56816; HEBISON ENTERPRISES, LLC, #56018;DEADUNE TRANSPORT, LLC, #56713; ROBERTO FRAIRE, D/B/A F & F TRUCKING,#56715; BENCO HOT OILER, LLC, #56615; JEMEZ MOUNTAINS TOWING & OFF-ROADRECOVERY, LLC, #56064; HOBBS WRECKER SERVICE, LLC, #~a.~436; VICTORMAGALLANES SR. D/B/A VJ TRUCKING, #54951; ARMENDARIZ TRUCKING, LLC, #56758;J&M OILFIELD SERVICE, LLC, #56549; HBFMBG ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, 1156641; CRAIGO. NELSON, ULTRA TRUCKING, #56463; KELLY TRANSPORT, U.C, 1156497; OSCALDORODRIGUEZ, D/B/A O RODRIGUEZ TRUCKING, #$6132; JESSE FLORES TRUCKING, LLC,#56712; MORENO ENTERPRISES, LLC, D/B/A TRIPLE J TRUCKING, #55882; GUADALUPEGONZALES, D/B/A G GONZALES TRUCKING, #54959; ROBERTO MUNOZ, D/B/A AGSTRUCKING, #56788; HERMAN ARMUO, WAGON WHEEL, #850,

RESPONDENTS.

REGULAR. ACt!ON ~D DISCUSSION

Transportation Matters:

I’ 1)Judith Amer

IN THE MATrER OF THE REVOCATION OFOPERATING AUTHORITIES FOR FAILURE TOCOMPLY WITH FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITYREQUIREMENTS

NEW MEXICO PUBUC REGULATIONCOMMISSION, TRANSPORTATION DIVISION,

Open Meeting~ Ca~e Management Meeting AgendaWednesday, IV~arch 2, 2016Page2 of 7 EXHIBIT 2

PRC- March 2, 2016

ORDER

DAVID ROCHEL, D/B/A D. ROCHEL SONS,#56715; SAUL JASSO, D/B/A E & D TRUCKING,#56704 ; VERONICA YBARRA, D/B/A ESPANOLATOWING, #56567; AMERICA’S OILFIELDSERVICES, LLC, #56816; HEBISON ENTERPRISES,LLC, #56018; DEADUNE TRANSPORT, LLC,#567:13; ROBERTO FRAIRE, D/B/A F & FTRUCKING, #56715; BENCO HOT OILER,LLC,#56615; JEMF.Z MOUNTAINS TOWING &OFF-ROAD RECOVERY, LLC, #56064; HOBBSWRECKER SERVICE, LLC, #54436; VICTORMAGALLANES SR. D/B/A VJ TRUCKING, #54951~;ARMENDARIZ TRUCKING, LLC, #56758; J&MOILFIELD SERVICE, LLC, #56549; HBFMBGENERGY SERVICES, LLC, #56641; CRAIG D.NELSON, ULTRA TRUCKING, #56463; KELLYTRANSPORT, LLC, #56497; OSCALDORODRIGUEZ, D/B/A O RODRIGUEZ TRUCKING,#56132; JESSE FLORES TRUCKING, LLC,#56712; MORENO ENTERPRISES, LLC, D/B/ATRIPLE J TRUCKING, #55882; GUADALUPEGONZALES, D/e/A G GONZALES TRUCKING,#54959; ROBERTO MUNOZ, D/B/A AGSTRUCKING, #56788; HERMAN ARMUO, WAGONWHEEL, ~850,

RESPONDENTS.

15-00361-TR-MMichael Smith

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPUCATION OF GIANTCAB, INC., D/B/A GIANT CAB COMPANY FOR ANAMENDMENT TO ITS CERTIFICATE TO PROVIDEGENERAL TAXICAB SERVICE

Open Meeting. Case Management Meeting AgendaWednesday, March 2, 2016Page 3 of 7 EXHIBIT 2

PRC - March 2, 2016

Be UUBty Matters:

4)

S)

15-00375-UTJudith Amer

15-00127’UTRussell Fisk

15~261.UTMichael Smith

IN THE MATTER’ ’OF THE FILING OF ~.0’~EDNEW RATES BY KIT CARSON ELECTRICCOOPEeAT E, IN ,

KIT CARSON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.,

Applicant.

’IN THE MATTER ’0F TI~E APPUCATION OF ELPASO ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR REVISION OF ITSRETAIL ELECTRIC RATES PURSUANT TO ADVICENOTICE NO. 236

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PUBliCSERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO FORREVISION OF ITS RETAIL ELECTRIC RATESPURSUANT TO ADVICE NOTICE NO. 513

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO,

Applicant.

Miscellaneous:

UndocketedMichael Smith

’"REsOLUTiON NO. 2-17-17 DEVELOPMENT OF ACODE OF ETHICS FOR COMMISSIONERS

ANDREQUESTING LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL SERVICESASSIGN TO THE SELECTED INTERIM COMMITTEEFOR ASSISTANCE IN THE FORMULATION OF A

~ CODE ~OF ETHES SPECIFIC TO A U~

Open Meeting:. Case Management Meeting AgendaWednesday, March 2, 2016Page 4 of 7 EXHIBIT 2

PRC - ~ 2, 2016

u"doc etedCommissioner Lynda Lovejoy

’ ’~I~TE STANDARD PROCEDURESiPOUCY "~RCOMMISSION PRESS RELEASES BY PUBUCINFORMATON OFFICER

o EXECUTIVE CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO NMSA 1978, SECTION 10-15-1(H)(2) TODISCUSS UMITED PERSONNEL MATTER: SELECTION OF CHIEF OF STAFF AND OGCGENERAL COUNSEL

POSSIBLE ACTION: SELECTION OF CHIEF OF STAFF AND OGC GENERAL COUNSEL

LEGISLATNE UPDATE:

SM87 - YOU MEAN I HAVE TO PAY FOR TOWING? SERIOUSLY?

11. PUBUC COMMENT

1,2.

13.

COMMUNICATIONS WITH ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, MICHAEL C. SMITH

COMMUNICATIONS WITH INTERIM ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, ANDREA DELUNGa. CONTRACTED HUMAN RESOURCES LAWYER UPDATE

14. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSIONERS

15. ADJOURNMENT

To obtain a copy of this agenda please log in the Commission’s website atwww.nrriDrc.s~:e.nnl ~, $.

The Commission will make reasonable efforts to post the agenda on the Commission’swebsite at least 72 hours before the open meeting, but the Inability to do so within the 72hours prior, will not require the Commission to delay the meeting or to refrain from takingaction on any agenda item on which it otherwise could act.

At any Ume during the Open Meeting the Commission may close the meeting to the public todiscuss matters not subject to the New Mexico Open Meetings Act. The Commission mayrevise the order of the agenda items considered at this open meeting.

Notice is hereby given that the Commission may request that any party answer clarifyingoral argume_nTwith respectto any matteron theagenda. If the

Open Meeting: Case Management Meeting AgendaWednesday, March 2, 2016Page S of 7 EXHIBIT 2

PRC - March 2, 2016

Commission makes such~a request, any party present at the meeting, either in ~ or bytelephone, shall have an equal opportunity to respond to such questions or argument. In theevent a party whose case Is on the agenda chooses not to appear, the absence of that partyshall not cause such discussion or argument to become ex-parte communications.

ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING SPECIAL ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATEIN THIS PROCEEDING SHOUU) CONTACT THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES OF THE COMMISSION AT (505) 827-4042 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE PRIOR TO THECOMMENCEMENT OF THE OPEN MEETING.

PUBUC COMMENT

All members of the public wishing to provide public comment must sign a sign-up sheetpdor to the start of the meeting and identify their name and the name of the organization theyrepresent (if any), and the topic or issue on which they desire to comment. The portion of theagenda allocated for public comment at any one open meeting shall be limited to a maximumof 30 minutes for all persons wishing to provide comment. The order of speakers will be basedon the order in which speakers sign up, but public officials may be taken out of order. If aspeaker is not present at the time he or she is called to provide comment, that speaker shallforfeit their opportunity to speak. Public comment by an Individual or entity shall be limited tono more than three (3) minutes unless the Commission acts to extend the period. If thenumber of individuals on the sign-up sheet desiring to provide comment would exceed theallotted 30-minute period, the Chairman may limit individual remarks to a shorter time period.Individuals represented by or represenUng a common organization or association may be askedto select one individual to act as spokesperson to speak for the group. Individuals who sign upto comment, but either fail to do so or choose to speak for less than their allotted time, maynot cede or yield their time to another speaker. Written comments of individuals who cannotbe physically present may not be read aloud at the meeting but may be submitted to theCommission.

The subject matter of public comments shall be relevant to matters within theCommission’s jurisdiction. Public comment will not be permitted on matters that should beaddressed appropriately as the subject of an informal or formal complaint before theCommission or on pending rulemaking proceedings before the Commission once theopportunity for public comment in those proceedings has dosed. Public comment by parties toa proceeding or adjudication pending before the Commission will not be permitted where thecomment concerns matters at issue in such proceeding. The Chairman shall retain theright tostop any speaker who raises an issue that is not under the Commission’s jurisdiction or issubject to the restrictions above. Public comment will be received without Commissioncomment or response. However, individual Commissioners may at their option seekclarification or additional information from speak~crs through the Chairman. No speakers will

-be accommodated after the public; comment~ortion of the agenda has closed. The Ch~rman

Open M .e~ting: Case Management Meeting AgendaWednesday, March 2, 2016Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT 2

PRC- March 2, 2016

retains the right to exercise discretion in the implementation of this policy and may overridethe above rules in case of emergency or other unforeseen circumstances.

Speakers providing comment shall at all times conduct themselves in accordance withproper decorum. Profane or vulgar language or gestures will not be tolerated. Audiencemembers shall not disrupt an open meeting by speaking without being recognized by theCommission and shall not incite others to do so. The Commission retains the right to removedisruptive attendees and individuals who fail to conduct themselves in accordance with theseprovisions from the Commission meeting.

Open Meeting: Case Management Meeting AgendaWednesday, March 2, 2016Page7 of 7 EXHIBIT 2

PRC- March 2, 2016

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

OPEN MEETING: CASE MANAGE~NT ,MEE~GDate: ~-~, ~_~ ~Gl~o

NAME PHONE ~ER TOPIC

EXHIBIT 3PRC - March 2, 2016

Documents

MINUTES OF THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION …nmprc.state.nm.us/docs/older docs/03-02-16 Minutes.pdf · david rochel, d/b/a d. rochel sons, ... #56713; roberto fraire,