MINUTES OF THE CASE MANAGEMENT OPEN MEETING NEW …nmprc.state.nm.us/docs/older docs/11-23-16...

MINUTES OF THECASE MANAGEMENT OPEN MEETING

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSIONNovember 23, 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. LyonsCommissioner Sandy Jones [telephonically]

Members Absent:

Staff Present:Bruno Carrara, Acting Chief of StaffRussell Fisk, Acting General CounselJudith Amer, Associate General CounselDavid Black, Associate General CounselCarlos Padilla, Public Information OfficerCydney Beadles, Legal Division DirectorAshley Schannauer, Hearing ExaminerFrances Sundheim, Hearing ExaminerJoan Ellis, Telecommunications BureauMarc Martinez, Legal 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 9:30 a.m., in the Fourth Floor Hearing

New Mexico Public Regulation CommissionMinutes of the Case Management Open MeetingNovember 23, 2016 Page1

Room, PERA Building, 1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa F~, New Mexico.

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 ALLEGIANCE/STATE PLEDGE

The Pledge of Allegiance and State Salute to the Flag were recited.

2. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS

There were no introductions.

3. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Commissioner Montoya moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Lovejoyseconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote.

4. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES

¯ Minutes of the Case Management Open Meeting for October 12, 2016

¯ Minutes of the Case Management Open Meeting for October 19, 2016

Commissioner Montoya moved to approve the minutes of October 12, 2016 and October 19,2016 as presented. Commissioner Lovejoy seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0)voice vote.

5. CONSENT ACTION

A. Transportation Matters:

New Mexico Public Regulation CommissionMinutes of the Case Management Open MeetingNovember 23, 2016

1)

NONE

B. Utility Matters:

15.00230.UT IN THE MATTER OF THE FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED BY EL RANCHO, INC.,(RICK QUANT) AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO(David Black) Order

2) 16-00286-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF NEW MEXICO GAS COMPANY,INC., FOR A VARIANCE FROM 17.10.640 NMAC FOR ITS NOVEMBER 2016GAS COST FACTOR STATEMENT - NEW MEXICO GAS COMPANY, Applicant(Russell Fisk) Order

3) 16-00293-UT .IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ZIA NATURAL GAS COMPANY, ADIVISION OF NATURAL GAS PROCESSING OC., FOR APPROVAL OFCONTINUED USE OF ITS PURCHASED GAS ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE, ZIANATURAL GAS COMPANY, APPLICANT.(Judith Amer) Order

Commissioner Montoya moved to approve the orders for all consent agenda cases listed.Commissioner Lovejoy seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (4-0) voice vote.Commissioner Jones was not present for the vote. So Ordered.

=REGULAR ACTION AND DISCUSSION


NONE

4)

B. Utility Matters:

16-00148.UT IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO’SAPPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF ITS RENEWABLE ENERGY ACT PLANFOR 2017 AND PROPOSED 2017 RIDER RATE UNDER RATE RIDER NO. 36,PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO, APPLICANT.(Ashley Schannauer) Recommended Decision(Judith Amer) Order


Mr. Schannauer presented his RD to the Commission. He noted that utilities are required to file thisplan annually. With their current resources, the renewable energy plan will satisfy RPS for 2017 under theCommission’s diversity requirements so no new resources need to be purchased. Several minor requestsare included and no one opposes them. His recommendations were outlined in the RD as submitted: 1) toapprove PNM’s plan that provides for renewable resources sufficient to meet the portfolio standards withoutadditional procurements; 2) that the Commission approve the proposed renewable energy rider to recovercosts for renewable resources. In this case, the original proposed increase to the rate outlined in the memo0.0069701 cents per kWh. At the time, it was a substantial increase because of a shift of recovery of costsin the wind energy contract from the fuel clause to the renewable clause. They entered into it andhistorically, they were recovering it in their fuel clause but shouldn’t have. So this year they shifted it andduring the rate case the issue was discussed and the Commission approved that transfer to the renewablerider so it is moot since already approved. There will still be a very small increase of one ten thousandths ofa cent/kWh.

3) - They third recommendation is the extension of the REC purchase program for three more yearsthat applies to small and medium solar customers. The additional RECs are not needed but PNM wasrequired to propose the extension of them because of the San Juan case.

4) - PNM expects to meet RPS with current resources but if they don’t produce as much as expected,PNM proposed in this case to get approval for RECs not to exceed $3/MW REC or 3 cents per REC. Herecommended approval. PNM initially indicated that RCT for 2016 would increase 3.1% or just slightly overthe 3% in the rules and they requested a variance to the rule standard to extent necessary. I rec a varianceis not necessary. The 3% RCT acts as a defense the utility can use and, not having to procure moreenergy- in this case, they have been in compliance with the standard so the accedence is minor.

5) - For the data filing requirements, PNM requested a variance. Rate cases require extensive filings, anumber of which are not relevant to a renewable case. The Commission has approved those in the pastand he recommended approval in this case.

Ms. Amer said the proposed order recommends adopting the RD in its entirety, NMIEC filed anexception on November 3 with two specific exceptions and a third that the HE denied the motion to file.

The hearing was held on September 26 and at that time, Staff and PNM presented testimony and noparty at the hearing opposed the plan and no party at the hearing asked permission to file a post-hearingbrief. Later, on October 21, the HE denied the NMIEC motion they had filed earlier on October 17 becauseNMIEC counsel was not present at the hearing and did not ask permission to file a post-hearing brief. Themotion to file the post-hearing brief was not filed until October 17, 11 days after the conversation with theHE. She read the rule and deemed that they waived their right. There is no absolute right to file a brief andthe decision is made by the HE and the parties involved.

Nevertheless, on November 3, NMIEC did file exceptions, one of which was to the denial. The other


two are that the RCT calculation was incorrect and therefore, that the renewable rider was incorrect. Thosewere not raised at the hearing.

The reason she recommended rejecting both exceptions is that PNM provided testimony that theyproperly accounted for backup generation.

Commissioner Montoya asked if she confirmed their testimony or asked them to confirm it.

Ms. Amer agreed and it was confirmed. There is testimony at the hearing and afterward that theyproperly accounted for backup costs. The backup generating sources information goes into the RCTcalculation and has no direct bearing on this case because they are not proposing additional procurementsand the RCT comes into play only when they propose additional energy procurements.

Commissioner Montoya asked if they are establishing the 2016 RCT with this.

Ms. Amer said it is for the application for the 2017 renewable rider.

Commissioner Montoya said the procurement has already happened.

Ms. Amer disagreed. If is for the 2017 program but no additional procurement so it is theprocurements made in 2016.

Commissioner Montoya understood.

Commissioner Lovejoy asked, if it is foi" 2016, if the amount can be tracked.

Ms. Amer asked what amounts she was referring to.

Commissioner Lovejoy said it was for the backup, procurement, they are including in their plans.For next year, how do they track the cost of things in the portfolio?

Mr. Schannauer said this has the estimates of the cost.

Commissioner Lovejoy asked if in 2017, they can adjust that.

Ms. Amer explained that there is a reconciliation process.

Commissioner Montoya asked why they are estimates if they have already occurred.

Mr. Schannauer said they have actuals for 2015 and estimates for 2016. It depends on theproduction of these resources. PNM does own some of them. But they also have PPAs. They don’t knowhow much will be produced yet.


Ms. Amer said NMIEC also asked the Commission to take administrative notice of other caseswhich is not proper and not recommended. Finally, NMIEC asked for several specific items to be includedin their next renewable case. It would provide a lot of information that would support their contention in thiscase but nothing is there.

Commissioner Lyons pointed out that in Mr. Schannauer’s memo, it says $3 per MW REC but itcomes in at $2.50 on page 2. He asked why a higher cap is needed.

Mr. Schannauer said that is in case the cost changes. It is just a cap.

Commissioner Lyons noted on page 13 of the RD, the New Mexico Wind Energy Center isidentified on the top of page in the 4" line where the RPS for this resource is $2 million. That i~ a big dropthat he didn’t understand. He asked what that is due to - not as much output? ,

Mr. Schannauer said that is what they actually paid and the calculation is based on several factors.He couldn’t give all the details for why but it doesn’t have anything to do with production levels. It is thecalculations of avoided costs.

Commissioner Lyons said the rest further down seems reasonable except for that one.

Mr. Schannauer understood his point.

Commissioner Lyons noticed on page 15 that geo-thermal capacity was increasing from 4 MW to 8MW - doubling the capacity. He didn’t understand how that is going to be done.

Mr. Schannauer explained that the facility had trouble getting started. The 63 MWh and 67 MWh isa fair estimate at 8 MW. 8 is what they expect to achieve.

Commissioner Lyons pointed out that right now, they are producing much less.

Mr. Schannauer agreed.

Commissioner Lyons went to page 23, in the graph, second line down regarding customer revenueis $18 million and then in 2018 is zero.

Mr. Schannauer said the reason is that they haven’t received any notices yetto do what is requiredto continue in 2018. Each year, they have to file.

Commissioner Lyons asked if PNM doesn’t want to estimate so they just put it at zero.

Mr. Schannauer agreed. They don’t want to bank on the cost factor.


Commissioner Lyons thought there was no sunset provision in the statute.

Mr. Schannauer agreed. They can continue as long as they spend what they do.

Commissioner Lyons went to page 27 about selling RECs to PNM or not selling. It says it mightnot add any RECs to the program from solar energy production and asked why.

Mr. Schannauer clarified that this is language WRA asked PNM to include on their website. Thecost is going down a quarter cent. The reason for it at that low price is that the customer may not be able toearn enough to pay for the application fee. To sell, requires a $150 fee. They would have to pay more tosell to PNM than they could recover. It might not result in more renewable energy -

Commissioner Lyons thought the RECs met the RPS and this would do that.

Mr. Schannauer said the customer is selling energy but holding onto the RECs and PNM wouldhave to get the RECs elsewhere.

Commissioner Lyons asked what percent of renewable energy is really in the system. There is a lotof renewable energy that is not included in the RPS. Maybe someone from PNM might know.

Mr. Ryan Jerman said he didn’t know the percentage off the top of his head but it was pretty closeto what they report for the RPS.

Commissioner Lyons asked if PNM could provide that to him later.

Mr. Jerman agreed.

Commissioner Lovejoy asked for an example of a non-exempt customer.

Mr. Schannauer said "You and I are non-exempt." It is residential customers.

Commissioner Lovejoy asked about LITAP.

Mr. Schannauer said the exempt customers are very large capped customers such as politicalsubdivisions and educational institutions.

Ms. Amer read the definition from the statute and said the rule says pretty much the same thing.Exempt includes universities with 24,000 students or more.

Commissioner Lyons said there are three exempt classes in the statute.

Ms. Amer said it is not the tribes, per se.


Ms. Amer said there was no testimony or evidence presented that would suggest anything in theprogram should not be approved.

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

5) 16-00109.UT IN THE MATTER OF EL PASO ELECTRIC COMPANY’S 2016 RENEWABLEENERGY PLAN PURSUANT TO THE RENEWABLE ENERGY ACT AND17.9.572 NMAC(Frances Sundheim) Recommended Decision(Russell Fisk) Order

Ms. Sundheim presented her RD to the Commission. EPE filed its application for approval of the 2016Renewable Energy Plan with the PRC on April 29, 2016. The Plan pertains to the years 2017 and 2018.EPE requests that the Commission approve its 2016 Plan including, A) a partial waiver from meeting thefull RPS percentage for 2018, pursuant to the REA and Rule, based upon EPE’s calculation that the cost toprocure additional renewable resources would exceed the RCT/b) a variance for 2018 from the winddiversity amounts of 30% of RPS and the biomass diversity amounts of 5% of RPS. EPE states that itcannot meet the minimum percentage amounts primarily because of RCT limitations and also because oftechnical constraints and unavailability of these resources at reasonable cost. C) Approval of closure,effective January 1, 2017, of Schedule 33 - Small System Renewable energy Certificate Purchase,Schedule 34 - Medium System Renewable energy Certificate Purchase, and Schedule 35 - Large systemRenewable Energy Certificate Purchase, because of the lack of customer applications; 3) approval of

¯ ’modifi(~ations to EPE’s REC Program Tariffs and E) Approval of new Sample Forms No. 40 and 41.

Ms. Sundheim recommended approval of the 2016 portfolio and their requested variances. She saidthis plan is very similar to the previous one. The testimony indicates the problem with acquisition ofrenewable resources and the technical issues and that the cost will be higher in 2018. So the Plan requestsan additional one-year waiver of the RPS requirements.

Regarding the DG diversity requirement, EPE currently procures more DG RECs than are needed tomeet the DG diversity requirement. Staff concurs that it is in the public interest to close the REC purchaseschedules to new customers since new and additional REC contract costs would cause EPE’s costs toexceed the RCT and those cost savings would be better spent assisting EPE to achieve total RPScompliance in future plan applications.

Based on the evidence, the HE recommended that the Commission approve EPE’s 2016 Plan, ascompliant with the requirements of the REA and the Rule. And based on the evidence, the HE concludedthat EPE would not be required to acquire additional resources to meet the rule’s requirement of a fullydiversified portfolio, at a cost that exceeds the RCT. The Commission should grant EPE’s requestedvariances but not to excuse EPE from future RPS requirements.


Mr. Fisk said there were exceptions filed by the City of Las Cruces, DoSa Ana County and CCAE. Mr.Fisk’s recommendation is to accept the RD and reject the exceptions. The Commission has already heardwhat those exceptions were by Ms. Sundheim so they were already dealt with in the RD. They tookexception to the variance for the 2018 plan year, But EPE exceeded the RCT so far, that there is no reasonto say they are not meeting the requirement. The ratio is 6.25% and in 2018, 6.07%, far exceeding the RCTof 3%.

Commissioner Montoya asked if he was recommending a waiver of meeting the full portfolio standard.

Mr. Fisk agreed.

Commissioner Montoya said this is different from what Mr. Schannauer stated with no requirement fora waiver because the RCT is basically something they have to meet but can always exceed.

Mr. Fisk clarified that if they exceed the RCT, they don’t need to meet the RPS requirement.

Commissioner Montoya agreed.

Mr. Fisk felt it does make sense for 2018 because this application is only for 2017. 2018 goesbeyond the plan. By doing away with it, they are saying they don’t have to wait. People are just saying towait to 2018.

Commissioner Montoya asked then, why the Commission should not wait until next year.

Mr. Fisk said it is because EPE would have to undertake RFPs which are costly. So, let’s send asignal that they don’t have to do that. If we waited, they would have to start that process all over again.

Commissioner Montoya said okay.

Mr. Fisk said the next exception is to the calculation of the RCT because it involves avoided coststhat would lower the cost of the RCT. The calculation is a critique of the RCT.

Commissioner Montoya said there is nothing to adopt because there is nothing in the record.

Mr. Fisk agreed. What came out is that taking out the renewable capacity didn’t make more need.There are no avoided costs in the plan year so he recommended rejection of that exception.

Commissioner Montoya asked when the true up on avoided costs happens.

Ms. Sundheim said they do that every year.


Mr. Fisk said on the exception of waiver for 2018. The RD includes that there is substantial evidencethat EPE has made efforts to identify new procurements in the 2017 and 2018 plan without exceeding theRCT. EPE responded to the exception that it violated Rule 572 that this requirement in the rule should also9be limited by the RCT. They asked why the company should come up with a plan beyond 2017 when theyare already exceeding RCT for the next three years. So, he recommended adoption of the whole RD.

Commissioner Lovejoy asked if the avoided cost includes environmental and capacity costs.

Mr. Fisk said it could but it was not shown here to include those.

Ms. Sundheim agreed that environment cost was part of it. There was a very extensive section of theirtestimony on how they do the revenue requirements calculation~ and items that are part of the offset. TheCommission already heard Mr. Schannauer talking about customer types. She read from a section of it. It isa basic calculation the company has to make and includes those types of modeled inputs which result inwhat the actual compliance cost would be.

Commissioner Lyons asked if it would be fair to say they had some very expensive renewables in theportfolio.

Ms. Sundheim said they entered into an agreement some time ago with the Southwest EnvironmentalCenter, Road Runner, etc. Sun Edison and EPE approved incentives for customer installed facilities out ofcases in 2005 through 2015.

Commissioner Lyons observed that some of it is very expensive for customers.

Ms. Sundheim agreed.

Commissioner Lyons pointed out that the sun shines 354 days a year so solar shouldn’t be thatexpensive.

Ms. Sundheim said over 5-6 years there are improvements in cost. But when entering those contracts,you don’t know what it will be.

Commissioner Montoya moved to approve the order. Chairperson Espinoza seconded themotion and it passed by unanimous (4.0) with Commissioner Jones not voting. So, Ordered

6) 16-00175-UT IN THE MATTER OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY AV WATERCO., LLC, SHOULD NOT BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITYACT AND COMMISSION RULES AND WHY THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOTIMPOSE SANCTIONS AND FINES, AND ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF(Russell Fisk) Order

New Mexico Public Regulation CommissionMinutes of the Case Management Open MeetingNovember 23, 2016 Page lO

At the request of Chairperson Espinoza, this portion of the minutes is transcribed in verbatim format.

Chairperson Espinoza - Russell, do you want to keep your seat warm? Case number 16-00175-UT IN THE

MATTER OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY AV WATER CO., LLC, SHOULD

NOT BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY ACT AND COMMISSION RULES

AND WHY THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT IMPOSE SANCTIONS AND FINES, AND ANY

OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF. So, let’s hear it.

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair, Commissioners, first of all, I apologize for the late order and I was not so awake

yesterday. The order is long - about twenty pages. But the vast majority of that is a history of

the case and citations to the voluminous testimony from the hearing in Aztec that strongly

supports the imposition of fines. This order is before the Commission as per Commissioner

Montoya’s direction a couple of weeks ago to come back with an order for fines and also, for

essentially a receivership - in position of receivership ~ver AV Water’s water system or one of

the other systems. As requested by Commissioner Montoya, the proposed order would impose

a fine against AV Water. Like I said though, I have not put in an amount. Because there is a

range of amounts. I discussed that with Staff who had recommended, depending upon the

Commission’s wishes so it is blank at this point and canbe filled in, obviously.

Staff provided a matrix at the Aztec hearing with various fining options. Based on the order to

show cause that was issued at the beginning of this case which had a number of different,

essentially, violations of the Statute, Public Utility Act and various Commission rules which I

will also describe. It has a potential range of fines from $364,300 to $1,283,000. I believe that


any amount in this range would be fully supported by the record of the hearing. The

Commission could even go a little higher because Staff did not consider all four of the

Commission orders that have been violated by AV Water regarding, in this matter itself,

regarding failure to serve water to customers, failure to provide an affidavit as to the testimony

of Thomas Farrell as an issue that came up about a month or so ago, and failure to provide

testimony at the hearing regarding a plan for refunds or bill credits. That’s something the

Commission specifically instructed AV Water to provide testimony on and they did not, Under

the proposed order, be fine on receivership would be based upon the Commission finding AV

Water liable for violation of the Public Utility Act and Commission rules pertaining to adequate

and efficient service, water quality, water pressure, adequate transmission, distribution, and

storage systems, water disinfection, and prompt response to customer complaints. Staff found

violation of each of these provisions. However, Staff did not render an opinion as to one of the

issues that was raised in the order to show cause, which is whether AV Water has violated

provisions of the final order in Case number 11-00001-UT. That was the case in which a CCN

was granted to AV Water with certain conditions as per stipulation of the parties.

Chairperson Espinoza - The CCN was granted. It really concerns me now because when Staff puts forth

recommendations and we approve it, based on your discovery. Yet, we approved that CCN,

but we did not know the terrible condition of those tanks out there. Did Staff actually go out

there? And could you have brought that to us? So we went ahead and approved it for I

supported that. I’m just wondering how that works when we assign somebody to go out there

and investigate. I don’t think we would have... I would not support a CCN had I known that


there were all these problems.

Mr. Fisk - Well, Commissioner Espinoza, that issue was in the case of the last few years and I believe Staff

made inspections. The stipulation actually stipulated that the company would make certain

improvements and would spend, I believe, it was $80,000 a year for the first three years.

Chairperson Espinoza - Well, where is your proof that it was $80,000 year?.

Mr. Fisk - Well, AV Water hatchery has submitted, in response to the bench request, they have submitted

some accounting. I haven’t had a chance to review it because it just came in, I believe,

yesterday. But AV Water was asked to provide us some evidence in response to the order to

show cause as to amounts that it has spent since it took over. So, I agree with Staff that it’s not

clear that they have violated that stipulation.

Chairperson Espinoza - Well, let’s go back to my original question on the CCN that was granted. How

could you bring forth such a rule that you would approve or recommend to us that we go ahead

with it when all of these problems had been ongoing? And, at that point, then, I said I was

wrong about the tank and the conditions of the tank, which the rest and all the problems with it-

why didn’t you say that or why didn’t Staff let us know that before you proposed the order

approval that granted them. I think that was 5 to 0, wasn’t it? We all agree..

Mr. Fisk - Yes, Madam Chair, I believe, because there was a stipulation, and it was a very detailed

stipulation that seemed to indicate a very detailed review of the state of the system. In hind

sight, it doesn’t appear that review done may not have caught all the problems and there were

.oo

Chairperson Espinoza - And you are bringing back to me again and there is that.


Mr. Fisk - There was also reliance on an engineering report that was prepared by a company called

Molzen-Corbin. So the record of that case was a very extensive and what seemed to be a

thorough review by Staff.

Chairperson Espinoza - so by Molzen-Corbin?

Mr. Fisk - Yes.

Chairperson Espinoza - Do you have that report or can you get to it later on? Commissioner Lovejoy has a

question.

Commissioner Lovejoy - On your point, I am struck by the metrics that the Staff prepared. The Commission

knew the system was imperfect with AV Water utility. I too, am... And of course it was in my file

here and I was here in my second month when this was presented to us. And there is a history

that the case been going through evidentiary hearing for a number of years - two or three years

or something of that nature. So I too, am struck by this statement that the Commission knew

that the system was imperfect. And that is... And I think we checked the evidentiary record.

And there was a comment by someone from either a domestic water Association - a member

of a domestic water Association - ABT. And made a comment that the system had some

leaking problems. But that was just one person that made that statement. In the rest of the

record, there was no indication that the system was imperfect. And that is the reason that I

question if the Staff has the responsibility and engineer from our Staff when these cases come

before us to approve. Do they actually go out there and.., and make inspection of how the

system really is and then they come back? And it is part of the record that the inspection... But

the problem, the answer we got back from my questioning of what it was, and I believe, if I’m


correct, I believe you are the one, or maybe it was somebody else who said that sometimes,

Staff cannot go out there and actually do an inspection because of Staff’s shortage. So, yes, I

am a little struck by this comment and so your questioning is very legitimate, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Montoya - Madam Chair? I’d like to talk about - And this isn’t something I had in mind at all.

But it is actionable provision or suspension waiver of fines?

Mr. Fisk - Yes.

Commissioner Montoya - So, 90 days? Why are you going to give them 90 days?

Mr. Fisk- Well, Commissioner ...

Commissioner Montoya - Who came up with that?

Mr. Fisk - Commissioner Montoya, I came up with this on my own and I had not gotten to that part yet.

[Three people talking at once.]

Chairperson Espinoza- You were after the book benefit.

Mr. Fisk - I recommend... This is something I have added. I recommend that, in addition to... Let me go

over this next one and then come back. I have included an optional provision that would

suspend the fine for 90 days, which is a number are used... Came up with, myself for a

particular reason and I’d like for that to be extended by the Commission... Again, this is not

something, Commissioner Montoya, in the order. But I thought of something that I’d like to

waive, based on my experience. The optional provisions state that if AV Water makes efforts to

resolve the problems with the water system such as effectuating transfers of the systems, the

Commission may consider waiving all or part of the fine. The reason I included it is based on


my very limited experience with these small water companies and I’d like to have even less, if

possible. The New Mexico Water Works case which the Commission is familiar with in 14-

00147-UT. In that case, the Commission imposed a fine of $50,000 each against two... It

was not exactly clear who was the owner of that at that point. And the Commission said it

would waive those fines in part or total if the owners made strenuous efforts to correct the

issues of the system or transferred it to someone. And it seemed to have worked in that case

because there is a process going on there to transfer that system and there are agreements

that have been drafted. It hasn’t gone through yet. But my observation is that having those

fines, and then suspending them and having that hanging over the owners’ head made

something happen.

Commissioner Montoya - Madam Chair?. That is a little different in that case, One of those persons in that

case was really very willing to do the right thing and seek out what ever needed to be done -

didn’t violate a lot of Commission’ls reqeests. But thisl inmy opinion, has affected many, many

more people and lives than that case. There was different circumstances in that case. There

was not faulty equipment to such an extent. That is just my opinion but this is much more

egregious in my opinion.

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair, Commissioners, all of those are very good reasons to reject my proposal. Those

are all reasons that differentiate this case from that one. I didn’t want to present that to the

Commission because now would be the time to consider that. But those are all perfectly good

reasons to reject that particular option.

Chairperson Espinoza - Let me ask you something from the same [unintelligible]. Is there any detail on


who is with three affiliated entities that you are referring to?

Mr. Fisk - Yes, Madam Chair, Commissioners, that was my other idea that I had added just as an option to

consider because this is the time to consider it. It is the other thing that I had. Mark luppenlatz,

if anyone can recall the person who is really the ultimate manager in control of AV Water, it is

clearly Mark luppenlatz. He is the owner in the record. Well, AV Water is owned by another

LLC and it is Animas Valley Land and Water LLC, which is owned by another LLC, H. D.

Farmington, LLC. These are all LLCs that I would also recommend including in this. And then

that is owned by or managed by another company called Aspen Management LCC, which Mr.

luppenlatz owns and manages, according to his testimony. And then the H. D. Farmington is

owned by three individuals including Mr. luppenlatz. He testified that the other two individuals

are just essentially silent partners. So my recommendation would be that, in addition to

imposing this fine against AV Water, which is an LLC that Mr. luppenlatz said is broke. He

testified at the hearing that he is not really concerned necessarily - I’m paraphrasing - about

the New Mexico Environment Department’s over $800,000 in fines because that is against the

entity in the entity is broke. So in order to have more of a hook, and more of an effect, I

recommend that this individual be included, as well as his other LLCs. AV Water may be broke

were not fully capitalized, apparently. So the law, the Public Utility Act allows us as the

Commission, to impose fines against individuals, persons or corporations who violate the Act

and we have testimony on the record from him that this company is clearly understaffed and he

didn’t want to add the cost of more staff, which is a major cause of every issue; the billing

issues, the not responding to complaints issues, the repair issues. So that person should be


held personally responsible. However, this case started as a show cause only against AV

Water. So, I believe that if we immediately impose the fine against Mr. luppenlatz and these

other entities, without giving him a chance to respond, there would be a due process issue.

Only AV Water has responded at this point. I included in the proposed order an optional show

cause to Mr. luppenlatz and these three entities to be held jointly and severally responsible

along with AV Water and given a chance to respond within 30 days.

Chairperson Espinoza - Jointly sounds good to me. But my question and I have several and everyone else

will have the opportunity. A minute ago, you brought up the Animas Valley and I know I saw a

story last night on Channel 4 about the residents. And it is a whole different bunch than those

that showed up here that were being interviewed. And they said, you know, they were really

concemedwith the high bills right before Christmas. I think I had asked you at one point in time

to get the financials. Did you ever receive them from Mr. luppenlatz?

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair, there have been two requests for financial information. One was in...

Chairperson Espinoza - Did we get a response?

Mr. Fisk - We didn’t get a response to the first one, which was for financial information that was to be

provided to Blanco Mutual Domestic. There was no response to that. But a more recent

request in this matter that was to request an accounting and the response came yesterday. It is

not a very lengthy response.

Chairperson Espinoza - Have you shared that response?

Mr. Fisk - Not yet because I haven’t even taken a look at it yet.

Chairperson Espinoza - I ’d like a copy of that. How many Commission orders have they violated? Because


you said they didn’t do the first one but they did the second one. How many other Commission

orders have they violated?

Mr. Fisk - In this case, I have cited for Commission orders with regard to serving notice, providing

affidavits, providing affidavit of Thomas Barrow. That was someone had asked me

Commission to postpone the hearing, based on the fact that this operator wouldn’t be

available. But they never told us what the testimony exactly would be and we didn’t get that

affidavit with the content of his testimony. And then also, like, t said, the Commission ordered

AV Water to have someone present at the hearing, whether they testified as to how refunds

could be done or bill credits could be done while on sufficient in coming to the company that

paid its bills on an online basis. That was...

Chairperson Espinoza - they said they were broke but most of them paid.

Mr. Fisk - Well, for ongoing salary costs, etc.

Chairpeison Espinoza - But they fired the last of those staff and only have limited staff there. If you call the

800 number, there is nobody there. Sometimes you get the attorney, but let me go back my

other questions. Because I think you satisfied that one particular answer. A minute ago you

said there were agreements being drafted as we speak. But, in the meantime, the potential

buyer, you said last week Blanco was no longer interested. So what kind of agreements are

being drafted and who is the other potential buyer, or is there even one? Because that’s what I

heard in the hearing last week.

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair, I said agreements are being drafted as we speak. I’m not sure I said he was not

interested. I have no idea if Blanco is interested or not. I’m trying to remember.


Chairperson Espinoza - Okay. So then back to my question. Do you know anything. The broadcast story

said something about a new buyer might be in place because Blanco it is no longer interested,

right? Is that true?

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair, I have no idea.

Commissioner Lovejoy - We need to deal with facts.

Mr. Fisk - Yes, and Madam Chair, at this point, we do have in the other case 16-00295 - that’s a case

where the Commission is considering that, if it happens.

Chairperson Espinoza - That it is in part in these orders. It’s in the record.

Mr. Fisk - There hasn’t been anything in the record in that case in the past week or so that has been filed in

terms of the progress of that case or lack of progress. I have no idea.

Chairperson Espinoza - I’ll so you.

Mr. Fisk - and that would have been be ex parte communication, if not filed in the record.

Chairperson Espinoza - That information came from you so maybe that’s struck still.

Mr. Fisk - It came from me?

Chairperson Espinoza - Yes. The vocal was no longer...

Mr. Fisk - Yeah. A couple of weeks ago, that was the news that I heard. Yes, a couple of weeks ago. Yes.

Chairperson Espinoza - You need to disclose that here.

Mr. Fisk - Exactly - which is why the hearing wasn’t to go forward. But I have no idea what has happened

in the past couple of weeks.

Chairperson Espinoza - Okay. We can drop that with no penalty. So the on the other questions I had were

, let’s see... The fines still have not been paid - the $800,000 fines that were assessed by


NMED. Right?

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair, as of the hearing, they certainly had not been paid. I haven’t heard anything since

then.

Chairperson Espinoza - We’re going to add to that another $400,000 possibly.

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair, it could go up as $1.1 million.

Chairperson Espinoza - Do you think that’s going to help the situation?

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair, if you have the fine against Mr. luppenlatz himself, I don’t think the Environment

Department has fines against anywhere except AV Water.

Chairperson Espinoza- I see.

Mr. Fisk - It is very different because that company may be broke but Mr. luppenlatz man not be broke at

all. But that would be one way of motivating Mr. luppenlatz to make something happen. Now

again, I’m not saying that AV Water isn’t taking any action. I don’t know what is happened in

the past (~ouple of weeks. Obviously, they did pursue something with Blanco Mutual and I don’t

know what’s happening at this time.

Chairperson Espinoza - One more thing. I’m not done yet. But just one more thing. Why can’t we require

the company to deliver, you know, like in the case with Flint Michigan - bottled water for at

least Thanksgiving, Christmas. They are having to deal with unsanitary conditions and we just

keep meeting and meeting about it but we don’t actually take any action. We should require

him and make the owners come here and do that. You are mentioning the owners. Let them do

it. And then you are also discussing a receiver. You didn’t go there because you weren’t quite

done yet. But who is going to be the receiver - the attorney? I mean, she’s in a pickle. And


again, all of this doesn’t resolve the immediate problems for the residents. And that’s clean

drinking water. Why can’t we require them to deliver bottled clean drinking water - 100 bottles

per week to each family until this is...

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair, I’ll have to look into whether the Commission actually has the power to issue that

order.

Chairperson Espinoza - we have the power to issue them a fine, which is more costly than thousands of

bottles of water.

Mr. Fisk - The Public Utility Act specifically provides for the Commission to impose administrative penalties.

I’m not positive whether the Commission can. It is something I can look into. If it is not

something we can do it is the same situation -identical.

Chairperson Espinoza my motion would be to look into that.

Mr. Fisk - Okay. Madam Chair, with regard to the issue of the receivership, for the reason that you just

said, I don’t recommend imposition of receivership. Unless we have someone who is willing to

be a receiver, you need a willing receiver to do everything. The court cannot force someone to

be a receiver. And so, what happened with New Mexico Water Works is that receivership case

went on for years - just required appearance at the hearings over and over .this would require

an appearance at hearings in Farmington and didn’t accomplish anything. The only thing it

accomplished something in the end was the fines and the waivers.

Chairperson Espinoza - you keep mentioning the water cases that we’ve had. They are difficult and those

are the worst I’ve seen in the last four years. And it always seems the wrong person gets hurt.

And that’s what’s happening again. And it all has to do with water. We have the leverage, it


seems, over the utilities even though we just keep prolonging it and it doesn’t fix the immediate

problem for those people. I don’t have any more questions. Commissioner Montoya, go ahead.

Commissioner Montoya - Madam Chair, I just want to explain the reason I wanted to do this in the first

place. I feel like, as Mr. Fisk explained just a few minutes ago, that it provides more of an

incentive for the company or companies, and I agree with companies, and maybe persons

liable, to make some concessions that need to be made to provide these people with what they

need. And I think that when you hit someone with fines in the pocketbook, it persuades them

that they need to move. I think this order does that but I’d like to see that we not waive it for 90

days. Let me tell you why. The Commission can always come back after 30, so keep the

provision that we can always modify fines as needed, depending on how the Commission sees

fit. So, I’d like to take the waiver off but I would like to add what you suggested, which is that

persons and entities who are liable to be added and included. My question is Can we fine AV

Water now and come back and find the other entities later or do you think it-would be better

and more beneficial to make that order all as one?

Mr. Fisk - Commissioner, I would do it this way. The Commission and go ahead and do a fine to AV Water

now and consider the others later. There is no reason to wait with regard to AV Water. They

have been fully noticed. The only reason to wait with Mr. luppenlatz and the other entities is

because they have not been noticed themselves.

Chairperson Espinoza - Okay.

Commissioner Lovejoy - Madam Chair, for the Commissioners, I’d like to read a little of Certification of

Stipulation. This is what the Commission approved back in February. The Certification of


Stipulation says, Douglas Alden testified that the Harvest Gold tank, communication indicates

that the paint has what appears to be bullet holes in them and the company is seeking

replacement of those tanks and insurance proceeds to either repair or replace them. So, some

folks have been asserting where there has been an alleged assertion ever since we started

dealing with this he the Water crisis. With those bullet holes in the condition of everything that

appears to be faulty now, they were already faulty. They didn’t happen after we approved the

, CCN. They were already faulty, according to the inspection made by Mozel - Corbin and

Associates. They did make inspection and it appears that it was noted in the testimony in the

hearing that there is faulty tank conditions and other systems. So I guess I now understand

and my question is... I’m now clear in my mind that it is not the responsibility of our Staff to go

out and do an inspection, because this is a private company who came; we were already under

the category of being a domestic mutual water Association and then they turn around and

came to PRC for regulation.

Commissioner Montoya - Madam Chair?.

Commissioner Lovejoy - I guess in terms of our counsel’s recommendation, I too, am waiting to fine them

but there is no money. But if we fine... If we go according to what the Counsel is suggesting,

that we fine the owner- right? Not the company.

Mr. Fisk - Or both.

Commissioner Lovejoy - Or both. That we start making some movement. But at the same time, I want

assurance that while we are doing this, that there is also our Chief of Staff has also agreed to

continue communicating, according to letter that he sent to Bloomfield that we consider putting


up some funding - possibly putting up some funding to make that 500 foot connection so that

they can put those customers under their water system and while at the same time, working

with Blanco or someone else with different ownership - that those are still being pursued and

not delayed while going along with this.

Mr. Fisk - Commissioner Lovejoy, this doesn’t in any way or should not in any way interfere with any of that

process. I can’t give any assurances about how those processes regarding Staff, the City of

Bloomington, the city of Farmington, and any potential of Blanco.~. I can’t give any assurances

on what’s going to happen. This order, itself, shouldn’t interfere with that process.

Commissioner Lovejoy - Then I agree that receivership should not be included in this order. Okay.

Mr. Fisk - And at this point, because there is a pending application for transfer, I shouldn’t be involved in

any such communication. Staff Can. Staff can work directly with AV Water.

Chairperson Espinoza - Commissioner Lovejoy, are you finished? I think Commissioner Montoya has the

floor.

Commissioner Montoya - I can wait, if you would like to go first.

Commissioner Lyons - It doesn’t matter to me. Go ahead.

Commissioner Montoya - Okay. So along the lines of Commissioner Lovejoy’s just said about bullet holes

and the fact that there was testimony stating that insurance, I’m assuming, would cover it,

since there was insurance and, if so, and if they filed a claim and received money from

insurance to fix what needed to be fixed, when where did that money go? That’s a question I

have and I’d like an answer for that. And then, too, ... What was the other one? I’ll just wait and

make two other motions.


¯ Commissioner Lyons - Okay. Before we impose a huge fine like that, I’d like two hear an update from their

attorney and what is going on up there. Could we get an update? It has been two weeks. We

didn’t have a meeting last week so we didn’t have an update. Can we permit an update from

their attorney of there?

Mr. Fisk - Commissioner Lyons, if it is just an update on current conditions. It should not be in any way

relevant to this decision in terms of fines. If it is just an update with regard to what is currently

happening. But again, I would advise the Commission not to consider this with regard to the

fine issue because...

Commissioner Jones - Madam Chair, this is Sandy. You know, we need to keep in mind that there are a

number of interveners in the case. And we allowed a number of interveners at Farmington. So

just because Staff was there, I would just caution that anything she has to say could be

considered ex parte communications. As I recall, there were about 12 interveners at the

hearing.

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair, Commissioners, at that hearing and in regard to this matter of fines, this order for

show cause, there are a number of other interveners. But for Blanco, Staff are the only

interveners. I would prefer that there isn’t any kind of update because it is so sensitive.

Chairperson Espinoza - How about what was on the news last night?

Commissioner Montoya - Can we vote on this to take away the ex parte and then get an update as to

where - so there is no perception of the update being affecting our vote?

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair, that would be preferable but I’d prefer no update. But if the Commission would like

an update...


Commissioner Lyons - I’m amazed that we have to find out the news from the TV rather than from right

here from someone that knows what is going on. I think it is totally inappropriate for us not to

get an update. We find out from the news. They know more than we do. That’s a bad situation

to put a Commissioner in that’s going to make a vote.

Mr. Fisk - Well, Commissioners, what we could do...

Commissioner Jones - Commissioner Lyons, if I can go back so I can get it. AV Water has had opportunity

after opportunity after opportunity to respond to Commission orders for hearing and all those

other things and they have failed at every opportunity. So, frankly, I’ve heard all I want to hear

from AV Water and all of their updates. Because we are not at Thanksgiving. There is still the

same people out of water at Harvest Gold. I don’t think they care about an update. I think they

want some clean drinking water. I’ll say my piece and let you go. But we’ve been talking about

this - about running the water line over and hook those people up to water.

Commissioner Lyons - But that is back on Bloomfield, not AV Water. Forget about the update. I’ll watch the

news tonight.

Chairperson Espinoza - We don’t want to compromise anything now. It is Thanksgiving tomorrow and it is a

sad time. Those are the wrong people who get hurt and meanwhile, everyone else goes on

about their day. We don’t know if we can force them to get water. But please find out.

Something has to be done.

Commissioner Montoya - Madam Chair...

Commissioner Lyons - I guess you’re going to recommend a $400,000 fine with no suspension which is

going to put a huge liability on anybody that’s going to take it over, which may discourage


anybody from taking it over. I think the suspension part is sorely needed there. If it’s not there,

you’re going to give $400,000 to the General Fund for the legislature and at the budget

hearing, you get chewed out after giving an extra $400,000?

Commissioner Montoya - Madam Chair, I think the chewing out at the budget hearing has nothing to do

with this case and fines to a company who is constantly, constantly just disregarded the Act.

No, didn’t have great fun listening to the legislature at the budget hearing because... I’ll

actually fill you guys in in Communication of the Commissioners later on in he meeting. But AV

Water was[??] and the legislature as well. And so, the feeling I have is that we need to impose

the fines on this company. We can always go back and amend it if there is something that

happens that maybe a receiver comes in at some point and change them. And I made sure we

had he capability of doing that within the order. Right now, it is just a matter of imposing fines. I

don’t think it should be suspended at this point. My thought. Thank you.

Commissioner Lyons - Ol~ay. To finish up then, I believe a fine is in order. You are dght. But keep

negotiations going, since we can’t get an update. A suspension period would be important to

put in there in case we do have somebody ready to take it over without a huge liability and

knowing those fines can be suspended. If they take it over, say 90 days. And I think...

Commissioner Montoya -I believe it has been since May 2016 and it’s already Thanksgiving. These

people have.., and we haven’t got a thing. It’s been December to December because we have

not acted on it. And we keep doing it and not getting anywhere. And I’m really frustrated, so I

apologize, Madam Chair. I’m done.

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair, may I respond?


Chairperson Espinoza - Yes.

Mr. Fisk - With regard to someone else taking over the systems, they wouldn’t become responsible for

payment of these fines. These fines would be penalties against the specifically named

individuals and companies. So that wouldn’t roll to the next person.

Commissioner Lyons - I beg to differ. I think there could be a contract set out from the seller to the buyers

to take over the system with all liabilities to offset all assets and all money coming in. So, sure,

there can be a contract between two private companies that says that. To say it is not, is not

right.

Mr. Fisk - Well, if AV Water tries to impose that as a condition of entering into a contract, that would be AV

Water’s choice and that would be something the Commission could review with regard to

any...

Commissioner Lyons - Well, you said it couldn’t happen and I’m saying it could happen. It can be passed

on.

Mr. Fisk - AV could decide to try to pass it on anything like that, but the Commission’s order would not

automatically flow to a new operator.

Commissioner Lyons - Okay. Well I like the order as it is except take out the receiver provisions. We would

suspend the fines for 90 days in case we have some other... We really haven’t imposed a fine

to have a suspension period, as Commissioner said down there. We have worked with them

but we have not imposed a fine. The is the first of that. And initially, it is good, except they don’t

have any receivers on it who want receivership. That should be done in District Court.

Mr. Fisk - Commissioner Lyons, that’s...


Commissioner Lyons - That’s all I have. I don’t want to argue any more.

Chairperson Espinoza - Commissioner Montoya?

Commissioner Montoya - Madam Chair, I’d like to make a motion.

Chairperson Espinoza - Go ahead then.

Commissioner Jones - Madam Chair, Commissioner Montoya, could I weigh in for a second?

Commissioner Montoya - Yes you may.

Commissioner Jones - Okay. I have a couple of things. First of all, the Chairman’s request on ordedng

them to issue bottled water, I don’t think that it matters to me whether we have the authority to

or not. I think we are well within our dghts to order them to provide drinking water to the

company.,, or I mean to the residents. We are actually in our rights to do it. We can order them

to provide safe ddnking water instantly. That is, in fact, what their CCN requires them to do.

The fact that we order them to deliver bottled water to them, then I think that is covered fully in

the CCN. There is nothing in that CCN that says we’ve allowed them to distribute potable

water. So, before we go with a motion, I’d like to see that included in the motion that the

company be required to deliver or set up an account some place where those folks can get

potable water. Secondly, Mr. Fisk, we should include in the order that any fines we assess

should be minimal fines to AV Water and maximum fines to the owners of the company.

Because you are exactly correct that the company can file bankruptcy or do whatever they

want. But the owners, themselves, in the past when we fined a company, would have a smaller

amount than the owner of the company. So, I’m not sure I know the timing on that and what the

due process is, but whatever this order says, it should say that it’s the Commission’s intent to


fine the individual owners respectively in a future docket. In other words, let’s make it explicit in

this order that the owners will be fined. Second of all, I think to Commissioner Lyon’s point

about the suspension period, I think language could be drafted in the order, rather than say

suspension or some other language, why couldn’t we say, the Commission may consider

waiving fines to AV Water in the event that the company is acquired by a responsible party?

I’m going to let you answer that question now to clear up Commissioner Lyon’s concerns and

keep the concerns of the other Commissioners. Could you answer that?

Mr. Fisk - Commissioner Jones, I think that does work toward Commissioner Lyons’ apprehension with

regard to the transfer. I have a question with regard to fining the owners. The only individual in

this order, and again, this would be giving him 30 days to respond, is Mark luppenlatz, based

on this own testimony with regard to his own control. The other two individuals who are owners

in H.D. Farmington LLC, I believe, we have no testimony of their involvement. I could include

them. We have him-testi~ing of his own control over the system and with regard to him writing

checks, and with regard to him saying he didn’t want further staffing.

Commissioner Jones - So you would segregate him, and he could subrogate it with his own partners.

Mr. Fisk - Yes. And the entities - the entities they own directly, or at least the one entity, H.D. Farmington,

would also be on the hook under that. With regard to having a separate docket, I wouldn’t

recommend that because the record in this docket is what supports fines against AV Water as

well as against Mr. luppenlatz, etc. So I would just have an opportunity to respond within 30

days.

Commissioner Jones - Commissioner Lyons, would that kind of language - may consider waiving those


fines be acceptable to Commissioner Lyons and to the rest of the Commission?

Commissioner Lyons - Yeah, that would be fine.

Commissioner Jones - Madam Chair, would that satisfy you all, as well?

Chairperson Espinoza - yes it does. Go ahead. And I think you mentioned something about the bottled

water. I appreciate that. It makes it more incredible to work with you. What I was hoping for in

the bottles was that it be 00 bottles per resident, not per household. That’s one thing, but, all

the other changes you’ve made and Commissioner Montoya seems to think that it is already in

there. But l would agree with you a hundred percent.

Commissioner Montoya - Madam Chair. Yeah, the order states, the Commission may consider waiver of

part or all of the fines. So it is actually already in the order.

Commissioner Jones - Does that satisfy the Commission? That is my question.

Commissioner Montoya - We have the capability.

Commissioner Jones ~ That’s fine. You work with all of Thanksgiving so I’ll vote. Even the weekend. We "

need to put something in there we can use in case, especially the contract liability picked up by

the company, we can say thank you for picking it up or we’ll take care of the fine.

Mr. Fisk - Okay. So just to clarify, under this version of the order, there is no suspension period but there is

the notion that it could be waived, based on this language that is already in there.

Commissioner Jones- And standard procedure would be if we issue the fines, we have the... The

Commission would have the option of foreclosing within 30 days if they don’t appeal.

Mr. Fisk - Yes, Commissioner Jones. Usually we make them payable within 30 days. I actually put 60 days

in the order but it just came up with that myself. And I would say with regard to if the


Commission wants to get further information as to what is going one, I would put a little longer

period in there. Otherwise, it would be overdue already. More than that is up to the

Commission. I don’t know. Thirty days is standard.

Commissioner Jones - If we impose the $400,000 fine today, they would have how long to pay them?

Mr. Fisk - I put 60 days but we usually put 30 days. That is a minimum.

Commissioner Jones - They have 30 days to appeal. I see no reason for 60 days. I believe there is a

possible solution from what we heard in the testimony for Bloomfield. If you want 60, that’s

okay with me. I do think we ought to order them to deliver water to the residents. They should

have drinking water. It’s been a long time since they had drinking water.

Chairperson Espinoza - Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Jones - And with that, I’m done. Thank you, Commissioner Lyons, for your concerns there.

Commissioner Lovejoy - May I ask a question?

Chairperson Espinoza - Commissioner Lovejoy.

Commissioner Lovejoy - You know, you want to be the one to just continue talking and asking questions

and the rest of us are sitting here, wanting to say something. But, you know, you’ve got the

floor. My question, and I just want a yes or no answer because, certain Commissioners, with

their emotions high on this... Every time, make statements that causes frustration. And we

have to... I mean, are we... Every time we get on this subject, our emotions run high. We

don’t feel... We forget about dealing with Staff. It’s our emotions that start running high, And

then it becomes I, Ii I. What about we? So my question is, and I just want a yes or no answer

and I want it to come from Legal Counsel of AV Water. Do the Harvest Gold customers have


running water because I’m hearing they don’t have running water. Therefore, they need bottled

water to have now currently and they will tomorrow during Thanksgiving Day and beyond that.

Will they have running water? Will they have running water tomorrow for Thanksgiving and the

day after and the day after and the day after? I want a yes or no answer.

Ms. Chappelle - Commissioner, yes, they have running water and a boil advisory.

Commissioner Lovejoy - Thank you for that answer. So we need to be careful about what kind of

statements we make, because .....

Commissioner Jones - Can I hear that? I didn’t hear her answer. Are they still under a boil water advisory?

Commissioner Lovejoy - Yes, Commissioner. The answer is yes. They have running water. They have it

today They will have running water for Thanksgiving tomorrow and the day after and the day

after.

Chairperson Espinoza - Commissioner Lovejoy, they have running water- yes - but it is not clean water.

Commissioner Lovejoy - That’s the answer I wanted. They hav~ running water.

Commissioner Jones - Then I have to ask another question. Are they being billed for the water coming in?

Commissioner Lovejoy - I understand that they do not have perfect, clear water. But the comments that are

being made - it’s asserting that they have no absolute no running water. So I just wanted to

make that clear.

Commissioner Jones - Commissioner, I wasn’t suggesting that they delivered boiled, er, bottled water to

flush their toilets. I was suggesting that they had bottled water to drink. And I supported that

they be charged the full rate so they have water dght now. I think it was [unintelligible]. So I ...

There was no confusion on our side as to whether or not their water should be used for


anything but drinking. They are entitled to drinking water. That’s what their CCN says. They are

entitled to that and that’s what they should deserve. So, they’ve got water that needs to be

boiled and they have been in that situation for the better part of six months. So I have no

sympathy for AV Water. I have no sympathy for [unintelligible]; no sympathy for anybody that’s

claiming they have water they are not really -restricting our job to ensure that they get good

water or the company gets fined. So, [unintelligible]. They should not have to pay for water

they cannot drink.

Chairperson Espinoza - Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Lovejoy - I still have the floor. Instead of nitpicking, and adding bottled water instead, why

don’t we just put in the order that AV Water immediately and fully comply with all requirements

of the CCN? Every time we... every time we... this subject matter comes up, we nitpick it. And

then we... and then we use terms like we haven’t done anything. I do not agree with it. We

have been doing something. But we are not the only ones responsible. We have legislators in

that area who have responsibility; we have the San Juan County Commissioners who have

responsibility and we have the City of Farmington and City of Bloomfield. They have their

responsibility, as well. So I just don’t like to hear Commissioners say we have not done

anything. Because we have been doing something. And I just want that clear.

Chairperson Espinoza - Commissioner Montoya, I think you were asked next.

Commissioner Montoya - Thank you. For one, the reason I’m not... I don’t think it is appropriate to... but

that they fully comply and not put in to add drinking water for them for the next few days or, you

know, from now on, is that we know that that’s not what they will do. They won’t fully comply.


They haven’t fully complied since May of this year. And so for us to say, right now, fully

comply, is just a matter of words in there. I think that we need to ask them to serve their

customers and provide drinking water, at least. We know that they’re.., you know, they have

those.., water to go to the lavatories and do things of that nature, but they need drinking water.

And they haven’t had drinking water. And, as Commissioner Jones said, I don’t know this but I

would assume that they are getting charged the same rates they always have. The attorney is

saying no, which is another matter. She shouldn’t be waving her hand at all. But regardless

now we know they aren,t getting an alert at the same rate that they always have. Anyway, the

matter is that they should have drinking water. And so, that is part of their CCN and I would like

to fully add that in to this order. I have a question. You said that we could fine Mark luppenlatz

and H. D. Farmington one. You also have in your order Aspen Management LLC, Animas

Valley Land and Water, Mezzanine Company. Are we also able to add them, or not at this

point?

Mr. Fisk - Commissioner Montoya, all of those would need a chance to respond. They are all in the same

boat. It began as an order to show cause. So they need an opportunity to respond.

Commissioner Montoya - Okay. Got it. So, adding all of those into this order is adequate, Okay.

Chairperson Espinoza - so on that same note, does that mean that all the animas Valley Water LLC’s - you

mentioned two or three of them - each and every one of them should be notified that they need

to provide bottled water or notified of anything going on?

Mr. Fisk - No. The only reason I would include them is if the Commission wants to make them severally and

jointly liable. In terms of ordering any company to do anything, that would be to AV Water,


itself. They are the utility that is immediately responsible.

Chairperson Espinoza - Okay.

Commissioner Montoya - If there are no other questions, I would like to make a motion.

Chairperson Espinoza - Go ahead.

Mr. Fisk - I have a question for clarification. I will probably ask for clarification on every single point since

there has been so much discussion of different options as to the motion.

Chairperson Espinoza - I think that Commissioner Jones had the ideal preposition in mind. Maybe he could

restate that if you need clarification or unless Commissioner Montoya is ready.

Commissioner Montoya - I’m ready to make my motion and I’ll try to be as clear as I can and try not to

forget anything. I ...

[Chairperson Espinoza and Commissioner Lovejoy were both speaking simultaneously.]

Chairperson Espinoza - let me say one thing. You will not interfere with my representing the constituents

and providing something that is in their best interests. And you will...

Commissioner Lovejoy speaking at the same time [unintelligible].

Chairperson Espinoza - and you will find that I’m very passionate. About serving the public

[Chairperson Espinoza and Commissioner Lovejoy continued arguing simultaneously.]

Commissioner Lovejoy -I do take it personal more than you do.

Chairperson Espinoza - Do you take it personal? Me I’m here every day; I don’t see you. So don’t say you

serve more than me.

Commissioner Lovejoy - I’m here. I’m here as well.

Chairperson Espinoza - Go ahead, Commissioner Montoya.


Commissioner Montoya - Okay. I’m going to be as clear as I can and I’d like to...

Chairperson Espinoza - Please.

Commissioner Montoya - Okay. So I’m going to amend this motion... Amend this order, amending...

Starting with amending a period of 90 days’ suspension. We’re going to take that out. We are

going to add that the AV Water supply safe drinking water, potable water, starting now.

Commissioner Lovejoy - Would you read the page number where you’re looking? The amendment?

Commissioner Montoya - Page number 19 is the first amendment. There is no amendment as far assafe

drinking water. I’m just adding it to the order. So there is no amendment there.

Mr. Fisk - And Commissioner Montoya, for clarification, would that just be with regard to Harvest Gold

subdivision, which is the only on under boil water advisory?

Commissioner Montoya - Yes. Thank you for asking that.

Commissioner Montoya - And I’m not sure where your sixty day...

Mr. Fisk - That’s on page 21, paragraph 8. "

Commissioner Montoya - So let’s go to page 21, paragraph 8 and go from 60 days to 30 days. And let’s...

I’d like to propose - and I don’t know if you guys are going to go with this. I know

Commissioner Jones said it is case law. I’m going to go with [unintelligible]...

Commissioner Jones - Commissioner, I didn’t hear that.

Commissioner Montoya - A fine of a million dollars for the fine.

Commissioner Jones - Good.

Commissioner Montoya - And I want to make sure that just.., the Commissioners know that the

Commission may consider waiver of part or all of the fine, if on page 21 and want to leave that


as is. And ...

Commissioner Lovejoy - Would you like to change page 21 c because it says the fine is hereby suspended

for a period of 90 days.

Commissioner Montoya - Yes I do. So, in other words, we want to delete the ninety-day suspension. We’ve

already got that. Right?

Mr. Fisk - Yes.

Commissioner Montoya - Okay. So, then paragraph 51 on page 20 - I want to just make sure that this

language is carrying out the record which you perfect- the record indicates that Mark

luppenlatz, Aspen Management LLC, H D Farmington One LLC, and Animas Valley Land and

Water Mezzanine Company LLC are jointly and severally liable and responsible. Or

responsible and liable.

Mr. Fisk - I put responsible because one place in the record indicates that they should be held responsible.

However, we will give them 30 days to actually respond. They need a chance to defend

themselves.

Commissioner Montoya - Right. Got it. Okay.

Mr. Fisk - So that’s okay as it is.

Commissioner Montoya - Okay. So that’s the order with those amendments.

Mr. Fisk - Well, and also, Commissioner Montoya, what about no receivership? Should there be no

receivership? And just to cladfy, so this one million dollars - it would be for the as per my

order, the million dollars would be a million dollars against AV Water, giving these com.., this

individual and his companies a chance to respond with regard to the Jones several liable for


that full amount.

Commissioner Montoya - Yes.

Mr. Fisk - Because Commissioner Jones is saying that guarantee that amount.

Commissioner Montoya - Correct - No. No, no, no. So once we determine whether they’re connected, then

we can further determine how or if we would...

Commissioner Jones - Or other additional fines. Right?

Commissioner Montoya - Yeah, because we could add additional fines as far as... for fines that we

haven’t even talked about yet. Right?

Mr. Fisk - Well, Commissioner Montoya, actually, I would think this would [unintelligible - coughing] right

here, because we have... We have the hearing and we see the evidence. If we wanted to

receive evidence with regard to whether the conditions of the stipulation the CCN have been

complied. That was.., that really was not seen at the hearing, That is something... There could

be another hearing on that or further.., but with regard to these particular.., with regard to this

long list of rule and statutory violations, this would be it. This would be the fine.

Commissioner Montoya - So, this says the Commission could even go higher because the Staff didn’t

consider in its interest, all four of the Commission orders that have been violated. Could that be

added at a later time?

Mr. Fisk - No, Commissioner. I would say that should be added ... that should be done now. But this would

be policy... Unless there is going to be another hearing on other than that.

Commissioner Montoya - Okay. So I’m going to leave it at a million and ... Any other questions?

Mr. Fisk - Commissioner Montoya, just with regard to delivery of safe potable water, just at that language -


not something.., because if you didn’t talk about bottled water, how many bottles of water?

Commissioner Montoya - I think that... Commissioner Jones, let me ask you a question. I really think

that.., and I know that we don’t necessarily have to state bottled water. I mean it could be

galloned water or... just clean drinking water.

Mr. Fisk - I really improve language, itself, whether by bottled water delivery, or other means.

Commissioner Montoya - by other means. Yeah.

Commissioner Jones - Well, I have no issue with that- potable water delivered to the households.

Chairperson Espinoza - That’s a little complicated. If they can just provide the bottled water, that should be

sufficient. The size, the shape, al00 bottles per resident in the local household - for each

person living in that house. It’s easier to deliver this, rather than ...

Commissioner Jones - Madam Chair, if they don’t want to deliver bottled water, we could say, hey, you can

do something else. We don’t need to get bogged down in that detail. Bottled water is fine with

me. I don’t know what other kind of water they would deliver.

Commissioner Montoya - Well, we could add bottled water. Bottled water. Just add bottled.

Mr. Fisk - Whether by bottled water or other means.

Chairperson Espinoza - Sixteen fluid ounces - that’s one pint- a hundred bottles per resident - not the

household - really basic.

Commissioner Montoya - I think we should do this with just bottled water. I’m going to go ahead and

motion that.

Mr. Fisk - Whether by bottled water or other means.

Commissioner Montoya - Because I’m thinking those bottled water- those are big bottles of water.


Anyway.

Mr. Fisk - Water either by bottled water or other [unintelligible]. M just making sure [unintelligible].

Commissioner Montoya - And they’ll be happy if they, you know, however they do it- just as long as they

do it.

Chairperson Espinoza - Well that’s why we give them an option. The bottled water is what they’re doing in

Flint, Michigan. That was, you know, rather than be worried about gallons or pints, just bottled

water - 100 bottles per resident. That’s what they are doing in Flint Michigan.

Commissioner Montoya - I hope we never get to Flint Michigan.

Commissioner Lovejoy - I’ll second... I’ll second your motion.

Commissioner Montoya - Okay. All in favor say aye.

Chairperson Espinoza - What was the final...

Commissioner Lyons - [unintelligible].

Chairperson Espinoza - Exactly. Thank you, Commissioner Lyons.

Commissioner Montoya -I’m sorry.

Chairperson Espinoza - Now We’re getting deliberate here.

Mr. Fisk - Madam Chair ....

Commissioner Montoya - Could we go back?

Mr. Fisk - Yes. Do you want me to go through that? Here’s the motion. It would take... The proposed order

and changes as follows - remove the 90-day suspension period; add that AV Water shall

supply safe potable water immediately with regard to the Harvest Gold subdivision, which all

residents of the Harvest Gold Subdivision are bottled water delivery or by other means. It


would change the due and payable.., due and payable date for the fine from 60 to 30 days; it

would make it a one million dollar fine and that would apply to AV Water and that would apply

to Mark luppenlatz, et al, assuming that the Commission goes forward with that. It would

include LLC in that if the Commission decides that they.., it would give them a chance to

respond, so it wouldn’t be automatic, if they are not [unintelligible] a million dollars for whoever

it is, jointly and severally liable. The Commission may consider waiver of part or all - that I

would leave as is. I guess I would take out this language about what’s specifically.., because I

have million in this that the Commission may waive if AV Water makes efforts to provide

bottled water. Let’s just say the Commission may consider waiver of part or all in its discretion.

And then... Yeah.

Chairperson Espinoza - So this water needs to be delivered to the residents.

Mr. Fisk - And receivership is eliminated.

Chairperson Espinoza - and the water r~eeds to be delivered to the residents - provided and delivered.

Mr. Fisk - it says supplied so add and delivered. AV Water shall deliver. Is that...

Chairperson Espinoza - Yes.

Commissioner Lovejoy - Do you want the fines table in 60 days as it is stated?

Mr. Fisk - Thirty days.

Commissioner Jones - We changed it to thirty days.

Chairperson Espinoza- What did you change it to?

Mr. Fisk - We changed it from supply to deliver.

Chairperson Espinoza - Right.


Mr. Fisk - And Commissioner Montoya’s ...

Chairperson Espinoza - Right.

Commissioner Montoya - So motion.., oh.

Commissioner Lovejoy - And I seconded it.

Chairperson Espinoza- All in favor?

All Commissioners - Aye.

Chairperson Espinoza - Commissioner Jones?

Commissioner Jones - Aye.

Chairperson Espinoza - Five zero, Carl.

7. PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no speakers from the public regarding this case and the public hearing was closed.

8. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE COMMISSION ACTION

¯ Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - Joint Comments of State Commissionsto Notice Re Settlement Negotiations (Judith Amer)

Ms. Amer referred to a memo in the packet. She was contacted by the Kansas Regulation Commissionwhether NM PRC wanted to join in joint comments. Michigan and Kansas have done that so far. On August20, 2016, FERC issued a notice regarding settlement negotiations which specifies that all Statecommissions would be required to have a person at the conference with full authority. So either the wholeCommission must be there or one commissioner with full authority. They are asking for a generic exceptionand excused absence from such negotiation. She asked if the Commission would like to all attend ordelegate that to one single Commissioner. It is a cumbersome proposal.

Commissioner Lyons said SPP allows for one person but this isn’t going to work. He felt it was notreasonable and that they should intervene.

Commissioner Lovejoy agreed. They should not send one single person. She asked if Kansas has


agreed to send one Commissioner.

Ms. Amer said no. They requested that they and all other Commissions be exempt from that provision.It would provide for a blanket exception for state commissioners.

Commissioner Lyons asked if she had a copy of the letter from Kansas.

Ms. Amer said a copy is in your packet. She highlighted portions of it where New Mexico would beinserted.

Commissioner Lovejoy moved to approve the request. Commissioner Lyons seconded themotion and it passed by unanimous (4.0) voice vote. Commissioner Jones was not present for thevote.

Ms. Amer handed out a document on the pending complaint for Western Water against PNM. OnAugust 3, the Commission dismissed the complaint and Western Water has now filed a motion forenforcement against the Commission, filed on November 7 and giving until November 21 to respond orintervene. Since then, we have filed a notice of intervention which is automatic for state commissions. Shejust wanted to let the Commission know that and that it is making the same argument as in the final order.

The other document is in final resolution by NARUC. One of them is regarding enforcement ofstandards and regulation. NARUC is in favor of state commissions remaining the body for avoided costsregulation. This is information for the Commission, in case anyone wants to contact them.

¯ Federal Lifeline rules and State Lifeline rules conflict regarding eligibility (Russell Fisk andMike Ripperger)

Ms. Joan Ellis presented instead of Mr. Ripperger.

Mr. Fisk said he was just made aware of the conflict this week. It is the revision to a federal rule by theFCC.

Ms. Ellis summarized the problem and apologized to the Commission about this last-minute concern.Lifeline is a statutory program that provides two things: an ability of carders to get $9.20 from the FCC foreach eligible consumer each month and our lifeline rules at $3.50 added supplement to consumers fromthe State USF. What happened is that on March 31, 2015, the FCC enacted a lifeline modernization rule. Itis extensive and includes lots of things, including broadband eligibility. It is a major transition to release orease the responsibility on carriers to make eligibility determinations, which is the problem today.

The eligibility is 150% in our rules and the FCC went to 135% of the federal poverty line.


Part of the lateness is that Staff was under the misapprehension that the State Telephone Association(STA) mentioned New Mexico as one that has a conflict. The waiver is strictly for automatic implementationby August 22, 2017. We have since learned from USAC and FCC that we can’t let the State TelephoneAssociation represent New Mexico. Various states have filed their own petition.

She said Commissioner Lovejoy was placed in an awkward position regarding the State waiver. SinceFriday, Staff spoke with USAC and FCC personnel and they gave this Commission the ability to file awaiver of the deadline for implementation and for waiving the deadline of December 2 for the federal rulesto be implemented in New Mexico.

The second issue is that we assumed we were lumped in with the STA petition and Staff had toconsider waiving certain requirements under Lifeline that conflicted with our eligibility requirements. Wecould either adopt and waive our state rules to adopt the federal rules for the $9,25 portion and leave the$3.50 as is since we have control over that.

The national database shows that as of two days ago, New Mexico has over a thousand peopleaffected because of the LIHEAP program. It is a small percentage but significant. If we adopt and ask for awaiver, it informs the industry that we are asking for that waiver to adopt the federal rules. Those would befor new customers and the impact would be on the consumer. The carriers are supposed to determineeligibility and the impact is on the low-income consumer.

She recommended that the Commission get CRD involved in responding to questions when theirdiscounts are lower. The Commission could also choose that the $3.50 add-on from USF also be limited tothe federal eligibility criteria. That would be easier for the industry. It is hard to tell the actual impact.CenturyLink is number one on the list and Smith-Bagley is #2 and third is Windstream. The companies willnot pass along discounts they cannot recover.

The modernization act is being appealed all over the place and one issue is eligibility. The industrycontacted staff. A representative from GVNW - contractor for several small carriers, has asked what theCommission is going to do. Because we thought we were included in the waiver, we assumed we werealready covered by the federal waiver.

Commissioner Montoya excused herself from the meeting at 12:23.

Ms. Ellis asked the Commission to either approve or let it go through these changed circumstanceson how to run the state. CenturyLink has filed a new tariff which essentially adopts the federal criteria.Basically, the states that have filed for the waiver have major problems with the statute.

Staff spoke with a very nice USAC person who put them in touch with the FCC person. If theCommission decides to file a federal waiver, there are some fields that can be utilized. Whether it is done intime, at least we have an application submitted. If the Commission chooses to amend the rules for eligibilityfor federal or state criteria, it might take some further thought.


Commissioner Lyons said the Commission needs to get going. The companies don’t really care.CenturyLink is taking the FCC rules. The fastest way is to go with the FCC. He didn’t think they will grant awaiver. So, we need to adopt the FCC rule as our rule period. We need to know the fastest way to changethe rules because we have to do this.

Ms. Ellis said, unfortunately, people currently on LIHEAP programs will be eliminated and atrecertification, they will be dropped, so the impact is on the consumer.

Commissioner Lyons said LIHEAP doesn’t need to drop them.

Ms. Ellis explained that it is no longer an eligible category for the $9.33 subsidy and possibly the$3.50.

Commissioner Lovejoy added that either way, it wiii impact low income people - Hispanic, elderly,tribal members, and that is one thousand people. If we take away their voice, it will affect those with cellphones. They don’t want to go with the FCC but rather, do something at the state level. It would needlegislative changes to reduce the impact on consumers.

Ms. Ellis said the major problem is that the Human Services Department, because it has all thedatabase, the customers have to get the documentation and Human Services was not willing to take onthat responsibility and get funding for it.

Commissioner Lovejoy added that the Commission has until December 2 to make a decision.

Ms. Ellis said the quickest way is toadopt the FCC rules.

Commissioner Lyons said New Mexico has to follow the FCC guidelines.

Ms. Ellis clarified that the concern is because we don’t have a state administrator nor a gooridatabase relationship with the Human Services Department and there are privacy laws and we are startingway behind and people are going to be impacted. We would need funding for a state administrator eitherhere or at Human Services and funding for a state database.

Mr. Fisk said if the Commission wants to attempt the federal waiver, it would have to be filed nextweek. Adoption of the rule could wait until later.

Commissioner Lyons pointed out that CenturyLink has already done it the way it needs to go. We canfigure out the fastest way to do it.

Commissioner Lovejoy said the problem with recertification is that if the participant doesn’t call thecompany to ask for recertification, the company drops them right away. That is where a database is neededand someone to certify them. New York State is a good example and Solix is their recertification


administrator. We are not nearly in a position to do it. The impact is on the poor and elderly,

Ms. Ellis agreed. They might be eligible in up to five categories but the customer must get thedocumentation from the Human Services Department. It is a large problem.

Commissioner Lovejoy asked if this could be put on Wednesday agenda with Staff’s bestrecommendation.

Mr. Fisk said the decision must be made today on an application for waiver and the rest can be broughtlater.

Commissioner Lovejoy’was in favor of waiver.

Commissioner Lyons moved to approve an application for a federal waiver andto proceed withthe rest on the agenda next week or the week after. Commissioner Lovejoy seconded the motionand it passed by unanimous (3-0) voice vote. Commissioner Jones and Commissioner iontoyawere not present for the vote.

9. COMMUNICATIONS WITH GENERAL COUNSEL

There were no communications with General Counsel.

10. COMMUNICATIONS AND POSSIBLE ACTION WiTH ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, BRUNO ¯CARRARA

Mr. Carrara spoke to the draft resolution from the LFC presentation last week.

Commissioner Lovejoy asked if that could be put on the agenda for next week.

Mr. Carrara agreed.

Commissioner Lyons said that today is Mr. Carrara’s last day of work and thanked him for his service tothe PRC. Commissioner Lovejoy and Chairperson Espinoza echoed their gratitude for his work and service.

11. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSIONERS

Happy Thanksgiving.


12. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 12:43 p.m,

ATTEST:

Carl Boaz, Stenographe~-"

APPROVED: I-/~ "" |’7

, COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 1

PATRICK H. LYONS, C-O~I~ISSIONER, DISTRICT 2

VAL~RIE ESPINOZA, COM~I~


NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMlVIISSION

OPEN MEETING: CASE MANAGEMENT MEETINGDate: .Ki,q:~oc~ Z~ ) ~t)l~ ....

NAME(if any)

Thank you for attending this meeting.

EXHIBIT 1PRC - November 23, 2016

NEW M,EXlCO PUBUC REGULATION

OPEN MEETING: CASE MANAGEMENT MEETINGWednesday, November 23, 2016

9:30 a.m.PERA Building, 4t~ Floor Hearing Room

1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, NM 87501

AGENDA

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/STATE PLEDGE

!!. ~ INTRODUCTION OF SPEQAL GUESTS

III. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

IV. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES

¯ Minutes of the Case Management Open Meeting for October 12, 2016¯ Minutes of the Case Management Open Meeting for October 19, 2016

V. CONSENT ACTION

A. Transportatlon Matters:

NONE

B. Utility Matters:

zj 15-00230-UTDavid Black

:16-002~.~ UTRussell Rsk

IN THE MATTER OF THE FORMAL COMPLAINTFILED BY EL RANCHO INC., (RICK (~UANT)AGAINST PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEWMEXICO

ORDE_____~R

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPUCATION ’~)F ’NEWMEXICO GAS COMPANY, INC. FOR A VARIANCEFROM 17.10.640 NMAC FOR ITS NOVEMBER2016 GAS COST FACTOR STATEMENT

Open Meeting: Case Management Meeting AgendaWednesday, November 23, 2016Page I of S


s) 16-00293-UTJudith Amer

NEW M~’GAS coMPANY,"INC.,

~RDER

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPUCATION OF ZiANATURAL GAS COMPANY, a division ofNATURAL GAS PROCESSING CO., FORAPPROVAL OF CONTINUED USE OF ITSPURCHASED GAS ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE,

ZIA NATURAL GA_~ COMPANY,Applicant.

Vl. R~EGULA.R ACTION AND D15C1)$$!O~,


NONE

B. Utility Matters:

4} 16-00148-UTJudith AmerAshley Schannauer

s) 16.00:Z0e-UTRussell FiskFrances Sundheim

IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANYOF NEW MEXICO’S APPLICATION FOR

APPROVAL OF ITS RENEWABLE ENERGY ACTPLAN FOR 2017 AND PROPOSED 2017 RIDERRATE UNDER RATE RIDER NO. 36

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO,Applicant.

ORDER

IN THE MATTER OF EL PASO ELECTRICCOMPANY’S 2016 RENEWABLE ENERGY PLANPURSUANT TO THE RENEWABLE ENERGY ACTAND 17.9.572 NMAC

ORDER

Open Meeting: Case Management Meeting AgendaWednesday, November 23, 2016Page 2 of $


6) 16-00175-UTRussell Fisk

PUBUC COMMENT

IN THE MATTER OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEAS TO WHY AV WATER CO., LLC, SHOULD NOTBE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBUCUTILITY ACT AND COMMISSION RULES ANDWHY THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT IMPOSESANCTIONS AND FINES, AND ANY OTHERAPPROPRIATE REUEF

VIII. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE COMMISSION ACTION

Xl.

Xll.

Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - Joint Comments of StateCommissions to Notice Re Settlement Negotiations (Judith Amer)Federal Ufeline Rules and State Ufeline Rules conflict regarding eligibility(Russell Rsk and Mike Ripperger)

COMMUNICATIONS WITH GENERAL COUNSEL

COMMUNICATIONS AND POSSIBLE ACTION WITH CHIEF OF STAFF, ERNEST D.ARCHULETA, P.E.

COMMUNICATIONS WiTH COMMISSIONERS

ADJOURNMENT

To ohm=in a copy of this agenda please log in the Commission’s website at

.............. :~L~.: ~..~L’.

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 taldngaction on any agenda item on which it otherwise could act.

At any time during the Open Meeting the Commission may dose the meeting to the public to ’discuss matters not subject to the New Mexico Open Meetings Act. The Commission mayrevise the order of the agenda Items considered at this open meeting.

_Nuo~LC~,_i_S- hereby .~.ven t.hat the Commission may request that any party answer dadfyingq ~,ons or provme orat argument with respect to any matter on the agenda. If the

Open Meeting: Case Management Meeting AgendaWednesday, November 23, 2016Page3 of $

EXHIBIT2PRC - November 23, 2016

Commission makes such a request, any party present at the meeting, either in person 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.

PEI~.~ONS WITH DISABlUTIF~S

ANY PERSON WITH A OISABIUTY REQUIRING SPECIAL ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATEIN THIS PROCEEDING SHOULD 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 COMMI~NT

All members of the public wishing to provide public comment must sign a sign-up sheetprior 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 representing 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 closed. 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 the right 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 seek

Open Meeting: Case Management Meeting AgendaWednesday, November 23; 2016Page 4 of 5


clarification or additional information from speakers through the Chairman. No speakers willbe accommodated after the public comment portion of the agenda has dosed. The Chairmanretains the right to exerdse 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 wKhproper 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 At~endaWednesday, November 23, 2016Pa~eS ors


NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

OPEN MEETING: CASE MANAGEMEI~IT ~ETING

Date: ~,1~"~~¥ ~ ~v\~

NAME PHONE NUlV~ER TOPIC

Tl~ank yon for a~tmding this meeting.

EXHIBIT 3PRC- November 23, 2016

MINUTES OF THE CASE MANAGEMENT OPEN MEETING NEW …nmprc.state.nm.us/docs/older docs/11-23-16...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES OF THE CASE MANAGEMENT OPEN MEETING NEW …nmprc.state.nm.us/docs/older docs/11-23-16...