IN THE MATTER OF THE RECONCILIATION
OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF
RIDER OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
NEW MEXICO AND ADVICE NOTICE NOS. 416
(PNM) AND 44 (PNM-TNMP SERVICES) AND
             REQUEST FOR VARIANCE )                                                
Case No. 11-00123-UT


Saturday May 28, 2011 14:00
Updated
Thursday September, 2013 15:37

_____

Thursday August 16, 2012 08:04

Dig link to Schott by Ms Glick. Still not read because of other more important tasks.!

Large-scale solar appears to require subsidies.

Solar water pumping works well in the right conditions.


Green Energy Charge To Hit PNM Bills [Google for full article]

The Public Regulation Commission approved a new renewable energy rate rider Tuesday to allow Public Service Company of New Mexico to begin recovering its investments in solar, wind and other clean energy sources.

Customer bills, for the first time, also will carry a line item showing the cost of renewables along with an explanation that they reduce the amount the utility spends on fossil fuels.

The green energy charge could begin appearing on bills as soon as this month, depending on when the commission publishes its final order, said PNM spokeswoman Susan Sponar. ...

PNM needs to recover about $18.29 million in renewable investments in 2012, said Carolyn Glick, the hearing examiner in PNM’s case, who recommended in June that the PRC approve the rate rider. ..



 

Above was planned in advance of

http://www.prosefights.org/nmgco/nmgco.htm#homan1

No ack from Ms Homan, so far.

Medvedev Says Russia-Ukraine Ties Aren’t Just About Gas

PNM rate increase again to cover cost of liberal arts 'educated' lawsuit?

FOUR CORNERS PLANT LAWSUIT - A coalition of environmental groups has sued the owners of the Four Corners Power Plant, including PNM Resources, over allegations that the plant has failed to install the best available equipment to control pollution.

From: "ABQjournal Business Insider" bizinsider@abqpubco.com
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 4:00:32 PM

Thursday August 4, 2011 10:46

Hearing officer Shannauer's email still not read.

Project orientation requires addressing important issues first, like going fishing, or testing solar panels.

Ignore the stuff that isn't going to make a difference.


http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#victory

 
State Supreme Court Invalidates Energy Efficiency Surcharge

The state’s highest court has struck down a decision by the Public Regulation Commission requiring New Mexicans to pay a surcharge to cover part of the money lost by utilities when customers use less electricity because of energy conservation.

Barry Massey The Associated Press on Wed, Aug 3, 2011


Thursday July 21, 2011 12:11

Spain's Great Photovoltaic Bust – 30,000 Jobs Lost Since 2008 comment.

CLEAN is a Better FIT for the USA

50 MW of Solar? Make that 400 MW



http://www.mpsaz.org/rmhs/staff/hljohnson/solar_information/

CanadianSolar

Testimonies are fun to read.

PNM Expects to Meet Growing Electric Demand With New Natural Gas Plants, Increased Energy Efficiency and More Renewable Energy
The company expects that of the 1,153 megawatts of new resources it will need to serve customers by 2030, 611 megawatts, or 53 percent, will come from new natural gas-fired power plants; 152 megawatts, or 13 percent, will come from energy efficiency and load management programs; and 390 megawatts, or 34 percent, will come from new renewable energy resources.


“While electric use by PNM customers is expected to continue to grow, we are in the fortunate position of not needing large, new baseload resources any time in the foreseeable future,” said Cindy Bothwell, PNM director of Resource Planning.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT
Don Brown




PNM deserves accolades for the Integrated Resource Planning process. Marita Noon Albuquerque CARE

PNM UPDATES PLAN - PNM said Monday it expects to meet growing electric demand in the next 20 years with a combination of new natural gas-fired plants,
Natural gas companies have been placing enormous bets on the wells they are drilling, saying they will deliver big profits and provide a vast new source of energy for the United States.

But the gas may not be as easy and cheap to extract from shale formations deep underground as the companies are saying, according to hundreds of industry e-mails and internal documents and an analysis of data from thousands of wells. ...

But if natural gas ultimately proves more expensive to extract from the ground than has been predicted, landowners, investors and lenders could see their investments falter, while consumers will pay a price in higher electricity and home heating bills.

increased energy efficiency and more renewable energy but no new baseload power plants.
Albuquerque Journal Business Insider Monday July 18, 2011

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#motion3reply

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION


IN THE MATTER OF THE RECONCILIATION     )
OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF             )
RiDER OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF       )
NEW MEXICO AND ADVICE NOTICE NOS. 416 )
(PNM) AND 44 (PNM-TNMP SERVICES) AND     )
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE                             ) Case No. 11-00123-UT
                                                               )
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO, )
                                                               )
Applicant.                                                 )

REPLY TO
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO'S OBJECTION TO
WILLIAM PAYNE'S MOTION TO INTERVENE

1 Replies are permitted under NMAC 1.2.2.12 C. (1)(d) within 13 days.

2 PNM attorney Benjamin Phillips writes
Public Service Company of New Mexico ("PNM") objects to the Motion for Leave to Intervene purportedly filed by William H. Payne.

is incorrect.

FACT 1: Motion for Leave to Intervene in Case No. 11-00123-UT
was submitted by William H Payne, author of Alternate Report, Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027 and David B. McCoy, Executive Director, Citizen Action New Mexico not William H Payne alone.

3 PNM attorney Benjamin Phillips writes
The Motion should be denied for the following reasons:

1. The Motion does not comply with the provisions of the Commission's rules governing pleadings as required by 1 .2.2.23.A(2) NMAC or with the requirements of the Notice of Proceeding and Hearing.

The Motion was transmitted to PNM by an email on June 24, 2011 with the Subject line of "HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to Intervene, was sent on June 24, 2011". The email contained a link to
"httpj//www.prosetights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#iflotiOfl3", which opens to a document that begins with the caption to this proceeding, but nowhere indicates that this pertains to a proceeding before the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission.
is incorrect.

FACT 2: Case No. 11-00123-UT PNM argument is that proposed funding of energy efficiency initiative will mitigate necessity of expensive new electric production plant[s].

PNM cites 'official' 2008 IRP report to support conclusion.

Alternate Report, Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027 PNM load forecaster Steve Martin showed that growiing number of customers [increased construction], increased size of dwellings, increased use of electronic devices and increased air conditioning penetration were the main causes of peak demand.

Energy efficency appears to be an attempt to mask the glaring west-side new construction electricity demand problem.

4 PNM attorney Benjamin Phillips writes
No certificate of service is attached as required by 1.2.2.1 0.C(2) NMAC.

is incorrect.

FACT 3: Here is signed bottom portion of our certificate of service.



List of those to be served was provided by Ms Anna Kippenbrock at the request of PRC chief counsel Robert Hirasuna at the behest of John Martinez of PRC's STATERULES@state.nm.us.

5 FACT 4: PNM attorney Benjamin Phillips sevice list appears to be different that the list provided by Ms Kippenbrock.







Appearance of Hearing procedural misconduct in Case No. 11-00123-UT is created by this discrepancy.

6 PNM attorney Benjamin Phillips writes.
It is not clear that an original and copies of the Motion were hand delivered or mailed to the Commission as required by the Notice of Proceeding 3, p. 6.

7 FACT 5: Signed original and 5 copies were mailed to and received by the Commission



8 FACT 6: Had PNM attorney Benjamin Phillips scrutinized Motion for Leave to Intervene in Case No. 11-00123-UT
and posted documents and notes, he may have realized his conclusion
The Motion should, therefore, be denied for failure to comply with the Commission's procedural rules governing filing and service of pleadings and with the Notice of Proceeding.

was incorrect.

9 PNM attorney Benjamin Phillips writes
2. The Motion states: "1 Movants' interest is to bring to attention to PRC and PNM rate payers that the rate increase proposed by PNM is not justifiable based on a flawed analsys of energy generation and cost from large-scale solar generation of electricity that are not in accordance with New Mexico renewable energy mandates." Presumably, this statement is intended to satisfy the requirement of 1 .2.2.23.A( 1) that a motion for leave to intervene "shall indicate the nature of the movant's interest in the proceeding."

3. This proceeding does not concern renewable energy mandates or any rate increase proposed by PNM based on solar generation. As the Notice of Proceeding states, this proceeding concerns PNM's energy efficiency program rider and reconciliation of program costs with rider recoveries in 2010. There are no issues in this proceeding relating to renewable energy or solar generation. Although the Motion quotes a statement from page 6 of the Notice of Proceeding regarding PNM's 2008 IRP discussion of energy efficiency, the lengthy Motion does not appear to address any issue with energy efficiency or load management, but is only directed at supply side resources. The Motion, therefore, fails to indicate any facts or issues material to this proceeding that would establish grounds for intervention.
is correct but attorney Phillips misses point of California-licensed attorney and movant McCoy's argment. McCoy and Payne both point out incompetence as reasons for intervention motion.

FACT 7: Phillips CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE list contains 9 names of attorneys. Payne and McCoy's CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE list contains 19 names which appear to be associated with the legal profession.

Our grounds for intervention, in part, is that the legal profession is making a decision on the contribution of energy efficiency while ignoring input from electric energy technically competent individuals.

PNM 2008 electric IRP official 1 7/8 pound report omitted essential material facts on electricity peak load and required production energy while including pages of extraneous material.

This the reason Alternate Report, Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027 was required.

Simply put, decision on raising electricity rates to fund energy efficiency efforts is being made by the wrong group of
'meeting attenders' who lack educational background and work experience to competently study the problem to reach a conclusion synthesized from the facts.

10 PNM attorney Benjamin Phillips writes
4. The Motion contains a large amount of extraneous material which is not appropriate for inclusion in any pleading filed with the Commission, such as inexplicable notations and photos and copies of postal receipts, web pages and emails. The parties should not be required to delve through this disorganized and irrelevant assortment of material in order to try to locate any statements that may be relevant to this proceeding, so that if any such statements exist, they can be responded to.

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by William H. Payne
should be denied because it fails to meet the procedural requirements of the Commission's rules and the Notice of Proceeding and fails to state any interest of Movant in the subject matter of this proceeding that would justify intervention.

FACT 9 Motion for Leave to Intervene was filed by William H Payne AND David B McCoy.

FACT 10: Two CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE lists indicates improper Case No. 11-00123-UT Hearing producure

11 WHEREFORE,
A Remove Hearing Officer Ashley Schannauer.

B Deny PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO'S OBJECTION TO WILLIAM PAYNE'S MOTION TO INTERVENE.

C Begin hearing Case No. 11-00123-UT De novo with single official CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE list.


Respectfully submitted this 18th day of July, 2011.


____________________             ___________
William H payne                        date


____________________             ___________
David B McCoy                           date


Signature telephone approval.






 








Sunday July 28, 2011 07:41
Motion for Leave to Intervene
in
Case No. 11-00123-UT

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#motion3

William H Payne, author of Alternate Report, Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027 and David B. McCoy, Executive Director, Citizen Action New Mexico in compliance with NMAC 1.2.2.23A hereby request to intervene.
1.2.2.23 INTERVENORS AND COMMENTERS: A. Intervention: Any person other than staff and the original parties to a proceeding who desires to become a party to the proceeding may move in writing for leave to intervene in the proceeding.

(1) The motion for leave to intervene shall indicate the nature of the movant’s interest in the proceeding.


(2) The motion shall also comply with the provisions of this rule governing pleadings except that the motion shall indicate the facts relied upon as grounds for intervention.


(3) Motions for leave to intervene shall be served on all existing parties and other proposed intervenors of record.
state:

1 Movants' interest is to bring to attention to PRC and PNM rate payers that the rate increase proposed by PNM is not justifiable based on a flawed analsys of energy generation and cost from large-scale solar generation of electricity that are not in accordance with New Mexico renewable energy mandates.

2 Fact 1 relies upon is misleading statement in paragraph 5 of NOTICE OF PROCEEDING AND HEARING
PNM states that its 2008 IRP showed that energy efficiency reduced the need for future generation plant additions and that the costs for capacity and energy that can be avoided through energy efficiency and demand management programs could result in a $390 Million net present value savings over the 20-year planning period.


PNM load forecaster Mr Steve Martin identified sources of demand for electricity on August 21, 2007, PNM Alvarado Square, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Mr Martin's foils were not included in the about 1 7/8 pound official report.

Perhaps curtailing sources of electricity demand identified by Mr Martin should be addressed as perhaps more important than energy efficiency?

Abstract explains reason for Alternate Report: Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027
Official Electric Integrated Resource Plan [IRP] for the Period 2008-2027 appears to be a product of a verbal faction of attendees of the about 17 sessions. Omission of what others consider important foils from Official report and elimination of which, we feel, are unessential foils in about 229 page report is an obligation to others to write an alternate report. Failure of the Official report to forecast available source of heat [BTUs] which is to be converted to electricity and to address the sources of increased demand, and to make practical arguments for feasibility of natural gas and alternate energy sources renders the Official Report about unusable.

2 Fact 2


asserts that Heat Rate does not apply to CSP or Photovoltaic generation of electricity. And wind too.

PNM Director, Advanced Generation Development, Mr Greg Nelson and engineer Frank Currie both state in writing that Heat Rate only applies to electricity generation from combustible sources.

Mr Jake Rudisill, Vice President, Operation and Project Management of Meridian Energy USA emailed
From: "Jake Rudisill" j.rudisill@meridianenergyusa.com To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:37:20 PM
Subject: Heat Rate misconception

Mr. Payne,

The definition of heat rate is not the heat content of just the fossil fuel inputting the conversion system—it is the conversion efficiency of the system with whatever is the heat input. ...


We have been in the process, so far unsuccessful, of trying to determine who is right.

Some engineers and scientist will promote technologies for business reasons when the know, or should know, that proposed technology violates physical laws.

Question 5. Does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics? in Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy should be answered for large-scale solar generation of electricity.

Resolution of the heat rate issue is important from the standpoint of justification of whether large-scale solar generation of electricity works or not.

Schott solar may have problems in the sense that more electricity is required to build its solar panels than power produced by the solar panel.

Question1. How Much Energy is Returned for the Energy Invested (EROEI)? in Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy may not be satisfied.

Pehaps Schott solar should be required to erect its solar panels to produce the electricity required to power its Mesa del Sola solar panel production facility?






 

No response received from Schott Solar.

Increases in US Natural gas and coal exports appear to suggest that there is currently no electric energy generation problem in the US.
Thursday June 23, 2011 07:52

Scott Barker
America's Power Army

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#barker


Hello Mr Barker,

Port of St. Helens a potential candidate for a terminal to export coal to Asia and U.S. Coal Exports prompts us to ask America's Power Amy for its official position on exporting coal BTUs.

We visited the proposed Longview coal export site on Tuesday June 21, 2011.

Reason we ask is that New Mexico aspires to be the solar generation of electricity center of the US.

Electric rate payers may possibly be asked to subsidize wind and solar generation of electricity as evidence by a PNM request for rate increase.

New Mexicans are being led to believe that that there is an energy crisis which must be met by switch to altenergy mandated by New Mexico renewable energy laws.

EIA coal export data leads us to question whether there is an electric power crisis or not in the US.

So this is why we ask America's Power Amy help with our intervention motion.

May 24, 2011 is deadline for filing our motion.

Please ack if you receive this email.

Thanks in advance.

bill

Perhaps we are victims of an altenergy liberal arts 'educated' mainstream media business promotion blitz?

3 Fact 3 Liberal arts 'educated' conjectures.
From: “Jason Marks, PRC” Jason.Marks@state.nm.us
To: bpayne37@comcast.net, “David King, PRC” David.King@state.nm.us, “Jerome D Block, PRC” JeromeD.Block@state.nm.us>, Becenti@state.nm.us, “Sandy Jones, PRC” Sandy.Jones@state.nm.us
Cc: dave@radfreenm.org, nmusa@rt66.com, mhartranft@abqjournal.com, “Staci Matlock” smatlock@sfnewmexican.com>, amorales58@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:12:09 AM
Subject: Re: Large-scale solar generation of electricity fraud in New mexico?

Mr Payne:


I don’t understand your concerns. There are two basic solar electric technologies: photovoltaic panels (PV) and thermal concentrating solar power (CSP). The development and deployment in NM is focused on PV. Hundreds of homeowners with installed PV systems can tell you that their systems produce electricity in line with specifications, as proved by meters.


You (either an individual or a utility) buy a solar system for a certain price, you install it, and it generates electricity for 20 or 30 years or so, with minimal operating and maintenance costs. There are no fuel requirements (and thus no “heat rate”). When you spread the upfront costs over the system’s lifetime electric production and adjust for tax credits and REC incentives, you arrive at the cost per kwh. You get to decide if you think that cost per kwh is reasonable before you make the investment. There is no fraud.


Jason Marks
4 Fact 4 Alexander Braun points out in the April 2010 issue of SEMICONDUCTOR International
Since 2002, photovoltaic production has doubled roughly every two years, increasing at a yearly average of 48%, making it the fastest growing energy technology. By 2008, PV installations worldwide had surpassed 15 GW and the end is not in sight. However, as Obi-Wan might paradoxically put it, "There is a Dark Side to sun power.

Eventually, existing installations will reach the end of their useful lifetimes, requiring replacement. One of the seeming contradictions of producing the means to generate clean renewable energy is that you must manufacture them using stuff that can be pretty deadly to the environment such as ammonia, arsine, cadmium sulfate and diborane. And when you discard these installations, effluvia such as arsenic are released during solar cell decomposition, and then there is all that chromium in screws and frames.

and
But there is more to PV manufacturing than just recycling. According to the SVTC's white paper, "Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry, although the solar PV boom is still in its infancy, what it describes as "disturbing global trends" are emerging. It goes on to say that a considerable amount of the polysilicon feedstock material - the refined silicon used as crystalline silicon solar cells' basic material - is produced in countries like China, "where manufacturing costs and environmental regulatory enforcement are low." It also quotes a March 2008 Washington Post report that at least one plant in China's Henan Province regularly dumps silicon tetrachloride, a toxic waste product of polysilicon manufacturing, on nearby farmland. The Post quoted Li Xiaoping, deputy director of the Shanghai Academy of Environmental Sciences: "Crops cannot grow on this, and it is not suitable for people to live nearby."


PNM has not provided a cost analysis of the efficiency of the provision of solar based generation of electricity in comparison with the available alternatives on any scientifically recognizable basis and environmental concerns.

The above facts support the conclusion that the evidence for the rate increase is incomplete, incorrect and has not
considered actual efficiencies and production costs related to existing alternatives.

PNM request for rate increase should be denied.

Submitted June 24, 2011 by mail and email.



________________________________________
William H Payne



________________________________________
David B McCoy



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to Intervene , was sent on June 24, 2011 by electronic mail to the parties listed below and by regular mail to the rest.

VIA E-MAIL TO:


Ben Phillips Ben.phillips@pnmresources.com;       
James Dittmer jdittmer@utilitech.net;
Randy Childress randy@childresslaw.com;            
Evan Evans eevans I @epelectric .com;
Stacey Goodwin Stacey@childresslaw.com;           
Steven Michel smichel@westemresources.org
Justin Lesky Jlesky@leskylawoffice.com;               
Helga Schimkat Schinikat_law@comcast.net.;
Bill Templeman wtempleman@cmtisantafe.com;    
Glenda Murphy gmurphy@westernresources.org
Mark Fenton mark.fenton@pnmresources.com;       
Karen White Karen.white~tyndall.af.mil;
Saul J. Ramos sramos@doeal.gov;                        
Tom Singer tsinger@nrdc.org
Thomas Domme Thomas.domme@nmgco.com;        
Tammy Fiebelkorn TammyFiebelkom@swenergy.org
Jill Cliburn jkcliburn@gmail.com;                           
Nancy Long lpk@nm.net
Marcos Martinez mdmartinez@santafenm.gov;        
Nick Schiavo naschiavo@santafenm.gov
Stephen Thies sthies@ci.alamogordo.nm.us;           
Bill Brancard bill.brancard@state.nm.us
Jeffrey Fornaciari jfornaciari@hinklelawfirm.com;      
Brian Kalcic excel.consulting@sbcglobal.net
Rebecca Dempsey rdempsey@cuddymccarthy.com;   
William Dunkel williamdunkel@lycos .com;
Anastasia Stevens ast@keleher-law.com;                
M. Tiemey-Lloyd Mtierney-lloyd@enernoc.com;
Robert D. Kidd rkidd@cabq.gov;                             
Anna Caster arina@luzenergy.com
Jeff Taylor jtaylor@nmag.gov;                               
Charles Kolbeng ckolberg@avcwua.org;
Loretta Martinez lmartinez~nmag.gov;                   
Jeffrey H. Haas jefThhaas@aol .com;
Daniel Naijar vnajjar@aol .com;                            
Sanders Moore sanders@environmentnewmexico.or
Kurt J. Boebm kboehm@bkllawfirm.com;                 
Stephen Fischmann Stephen.fischmann@gmail.com;
Peter Gould pgouldlaw@aol.com;                           
Jim Cotton ctcolumbia@aol .com;
Nann Winter nwinter@stelznerlaw.com;                  
Joe Herz jaherz@sawvel.com;
Jeffrey Albnight jalbnight@lrlaw.com;                     
Charles Kolberg ckolberg@abcwua.org;
Patrick T. Qrtiz POrtiz@cuddymccarthy.com;            
Claudia Borchert livlaflove@gmail.com;
Mary Homan Mary.homan@nmgco.com                    
Jay Kuniar jkumar@etcinc.biz
Clyde Worthen cfw@keleher-law.com                      
Ed Reyes ereyes@comverge.com
Bruce Throne btbroneatty@newmexico.com              
Keith Freischlag kfreischlag@swenergy.org
Clyde Worthen cfw@keleher-law.com;                     
Kevin Higgins khiggins@energystrat.com
Steven Asher steveasher@comcast.net;                  
David Van Winkle david@vw77.com
Patrick Griebel Patrick@pj griebel .com;                   
Laura Sanchez lsanchez@nrdc.org;
Jason Keyes Jkeyes@keyesandfox.com;                   
John Curl jcurl@westemresources.org;
Stephen Chriss Stephen.cbriss@wal-mart.com;          
Michael McElrath Michael_McElrath@fini.com;
Michael Dirmejer mdirmeie@gsb.uchicago.edu           
Howard Geller hgeller@swenergy.org;
Richard D. Vergas rvergas@doeal.gov;                      
Mariel Nanasi Mariel@seedsbeneaththesnow.com;
Rick Chamberlain Rdclaw@swbell.net                       
Jami Porter Lara jporterlara@gmail.com;
Lewis 0. Campbell Icampbell4@comcast.net;             
Barbara Alexander barbalex@ctel.net;
Charles F. Noble c-m-k@msn.com                            
Carmela Starace carmela@prosperityworks.net
Robert Hirasuna, Esq. Robert.Hirasuna@state.nm.us
anna.kippenbrock@state.nm.us
STATERULES@state.nm.us

By regular mail only

James Scott                          Robert Elder                          Charles Kolberg, Esq.
PMB 59                                9509 Benton St.                     ABCWUA
2118 Central Ave. SE             Albuquerque, NM 87114           P0 Box 1293
Albuquerque, NM 87106-4004                                             Albuquerque, NM 87103

Lt. Col. Karen White
Air Force Utility Litigation Team
139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403

Ashley Schannauer, Esq.                    Jim Brack                       NMPRC-Legal Division
NMPRC- Hearing Examiner                  NMPRC-Utility Division     1120 Paseo de Peralta
1120 Paseo de Peralta                       1120 Paseo de Peralta     Santa Fe, NM 87504
SantaFe,NM 87504                             SantaFe,NM 87504


Dated this 24th day of June, 2011.
 



Dave McCoy at Central and Monroe. 101o F Note Tee shirt.



McCoy, liberal arts 'educated' at Whitter College like Payne at Whitman College and a lawyer, insisted of removal of the word 'fraud' from filing for the reason that 'fraud' has legal technical defintion.

McCoy phoned Payne at about 13:40 on Friday June 24, 2011.

Payne sent McCoy by email attachment the signature page.

McCoy instructed Payne to go to an antique store at on the southwest corner of San Mateo and Central.

Payne arrived shortly after 14:00.

No McCoy.

Payne phoned wife who gave him McCoy home phone number McCoy had left on recorder while we were on vacation.




Home phone number tried and didn't work.

Payne phoned wife again to ask for Southwest Research Center phone number. McCoy had office there.

Payne phoned Southwest Research Institute. Receptionist gave Payne McCoy's cell phone.

McCoy said on his cell phone that he gave Payne inaccurate directions.

McCoy said he would be waitng on the corner of Monroe and Central.



Motion came close to not being fiiled on time.

Never trust a lawyer.









No response to below email.

Ben.phillips@pmnresources.com; jdittmer@utilitech.net; randy@childresslaw.com; eevans I @epelectric .com; Stacey@childresslaw.com; smichel@westemresources.org Jlesky@leskylawoffice.com; Schinikat_law@comcast.net.; wtempleman@cmtisantafe.com; gmurphy@westernresources.org mark.fenton@pnmresources.com; Karen.white~tyndall.af.mil; sramos@doeal.gov; tsinger@nrdc.org Thomas.domme@nmgco.com; TammyFiebelkom@swenergy.org jkcliburn@gmail.com; lpk@nm.net mdmartinez@santafenm.gov; naschiavo@santafenm.gov sthies@ci.alamogordo.nm.us; bill.brancard@state.nm.us jfornaciari@hinklelawfirm.com; excel.consulting@sbcglobal.net rdempsey@cuddymccarthy.com; williamdunkel@lycos .com; ast@keleher-law.com; Mtierney-lloyd@enernoc.com; rkidd@cabq.gov; arina@luzenergy.com jtaylor@nmag.gov; ckolberg@avcwua.org; lmartinez~nmag.gov; jefThhaas@aol .com; vnajjar@aol .com; sanders@environmentnewmexico.or kboehm@bkllawfirm.com; Stephen.fischmann@gmail.com; pgouldlaw@aol.com; ctcolumbia@aol .com; nwinter@stelznerlaw.com; jaherz@sawvel.com; jalbnight@lrlaw.com; ckolberg@abcwua.org; POrtiz@cuddymccarthy.com; livlaflove@gmail.com; Mary.homan@nmgco.com jkumar@etcinc.biz cfw@keleher-law.com ereyes@comverge.com btbroneatty@newmexico.com kfreischlag@swenergy.org cfw@keleher-law.com; khiggins@energystrat.com steveasher@comcast.net; david@vw77.com Patrick@pj griebel .com; lsanchez@nrdc.org; Jkeyes@keyesandfox.com; jcurl@westemresources.org; Stephen.cbriss@wal-mart.com; Michael_McElrath@fini.com; Dirmejer mdirmeie@gsb.uchicago.edu hgeller@swenergy.org; rvergas@doeal.gov; Mariel@seedsbeneaththesnow.com; Rdclaw@swbell.net jporterlara@gmail.com; Icampbell4@comcast.net; barbalex@ctel.net; c-m-k@msn.com carmela@prosperityworks.net

Email service list was given to us by a lawyer in non-machine readable form. It has to be scanned.

We need to investigate why


Tuesday July 12, 2011 06:55

____
Wafer business pulled in about 57 percent of its net revenue last year. Europe -- where governments are slashing subsidies on renewable energy -- contributed more than 35 percent.

Count of nine lawyers in the second CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE list, including Steven Michel who praised the official 1 7/8 pound 2008 PNM Electric IRP report.

Tom Singer is included too.
Hello Mr Singer,

Comment you made about the bond market and it relation to reliability and longevity of energy-efficient gas and electric appliances piques my, and hopefully other NM gas 2011 IRP participants, interests and impressed me.

Listen to your comment at last part of this audio segment.
Jeff Primm, also on list, is heard giving useful information about CFL longevity.

Which, if any, is the correct CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE list?



Bear acted defensively in attacking hikers, Yellowstone officials say

CPR for electric utility customers
Meet the default rate of the future: critical peak rebate


If Renewable Costs Are Down, Why the Financial Uncertainty?

Solar at Risk?
Policy stalemate undermines future





Always try to quash on basis of service.



They did.

Now we reply. After careful deliberation, of course.

Durango field trip photos, audios and video fixed and updated.

Dr Richard Sauder's predictions are scary?

Sauder looks to be a nut case.

But maybe for a purpose?

About 15 years ago Sauder appeared sane on a government mission.

He still may be on a government mission.


http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#motion3o












BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE RECONCILIATION )
OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF )
RiDER OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF )
NEW MEXICO AND ADVICE NOTICE NOS. 416 )
(PNM) AND 44 (PNM-TNMP SERVICES) AND )
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ) Case No. 11-00123-UT
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO, )
)
Applicant. )

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO'S OBJECTION TO

WILLIAM PAYNE'S MOTION TO INTERVENE

Public Service Company of New Mexico ("PNM") objects to the Motion for Leave to Intervene purportedly filed by William H. Payne. The Motion should be denied for the following reasons:

1. The Motion does not comply with the provisions of the Commission's rules governing pleadings as required by 1 .2.2.23.A(2) NMAC or with the requirements of the Notice of Proceeding and Hearing. The Motion was transmitted to PNM by an email on June 24, 2011 with the Subject line of "HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to Intervene, was sent on June 24, 2011". The email contained a link to

"httpj//www.prosetights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#iflotiOfl3", which opens to a document that begins with the caption to this proceeding, but nowhere indicates that this pertains to a proceeding before the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission. No certificate of service is attached as required by 1.2.2.1 0.C(2) NMAC. It is not clear that an original and copies of the Motion were hand delivered or mailed to the Commission as required by the Notice of Proceeding 3, p. 6. The Motion should, therefore, be denied for failure to comply with the Commission's procedural rules governing filing and service of pleadings and with the Notice of

Proceeding.

2. The Motion states: "1 Movants' interest is to bring to attention to PRC and PNM rate payers that the rate increase proposed by PNM is not justifiable based on a flawed analsys of energy generation and cost from large-scale solar generation of electricity that are not in accordance with New Mexico renewable energy mandates." Presumably, this statement is intended to satisfy the requirement of 1 .2.2.23.A( 1) that a motion for leave to intervene "shall indicate the nature of the movant's interest in the proceeding."

3. This proceeding does not concern renewable energy mandates or any rate increase proposed by PNM based on solar generation. As the Notice of Proceeding states, this proceeding concerns PNM's energy efficiency program rider and reconciliation of program costs with rider recoveries in 2010. There are no issues in this proceeding relating to renewable energy or solar generation. Although the Motion quotes a statement from page 6 of the Notice of Proceeding regarding PNM's 2008 IRP discussion of energy efficiency, the lengthy Motion does not appear to address any issue with energy efficiency or load management, but is only directed at supply side resources. The Motion, therefore, fails to indicate any facts or issues material to this proceeding that would establish grounds for intervention.

4. The Motion contains a large amount of extraneous material which is not appropriate for inclusion in any pleading filed with the Commission, such as inexplicable notations and photos and copies of postal receipts, web pages and emails. The parties should not be required to delve through this disorganized and irrelevant assortment of material in order to try to locate any statements that may be relevant to this proceeding, so that if any such statements exist, they can be responded to.

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by William H. Payne

should be denied because it fails to meet the procedural requirements of the Commission's rules and the Notice of Proceeding and fails to state any interest of Movant in the subject matter of this proceeding that would justify intervention.

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of July, 2011.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO


Benjamin Phillips, Associate General Counsel
Public Service Company of New Mexico
Alvarado Square, MS 1200
Albuquerque, NM 87158
Telephone: (505) 241-4836
Fax: (505) 242-2883
Ben.Phillips@pnmresources.com

By____________________________
CUDDY & McCARTHY, LL


Rebecca Dempsey
P.O. Box 4160
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-4160
Phone: (505) 984-4374
Fax: (505) 954-7373
rdempsey@cuddymccarthy.com

Attorneys for Public Service Company of New Mexico








BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

IN THE MA1'ER OF THE RECONCILIATION             )
OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF                    )
RIDER OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF              )
NEW MEXICO AND ADVICE NOTICE NOS. 416        )
(PNM) AND 44 (PNM-TNMP SERVICES) AND            )
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ) Case No. 11-00123-UT )
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO,        )
                                                                      )
Applicant.                                                         )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the Public Service Company of New Mexico's Objection to William Payne's Motion to Intervene were mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, or hand-delivered and were electronically provided to those individuals with email addresses listed below on July 5, 2011:

Benjamin Phillips, Esq.                                             Patrick T. Ortiz, Esq.
PNM Resources, Inc.                                               Cuddy & McCarthy, LLP
Alvarado Square, MS-i 200                                      P0 Box 4160
Albuquerque, NM 87158                                          Santa Fe, NM 87502-4160
Ben.Phillips@pnrnresources.com                              POrtiz@cuddvniccarthy.com

Mark Fenton, Director Reg Policy & Case Mngmt       Rebecca Dempsey, Esq.
PNM Resources, Inc.                                                Cuddy & McCarthy, LLP
Alvarado Square, MS-0810                                      P0 Box 4160
Albuquerque, NM 87158                                          Santa Fe, NM 87502-4 160
Mark.Fentond@pnmresources.com                          rdempsey@cuddymccarthy.corn

Steven S. Michel, Esq.                                              Jeff Taylor, Esq.
John Curl                                                                 Assistant Attorney General
409 E. Palace Ave., Unit 2                                        Office of the Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM 87501                                                P0 Drawer 1508
smichel@westemresources.org                                Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508
icurl@Wwesteriiresources.org                                   JTavlor@nirnag.gov
urnurphy@westernresources.org                              lniartinez@nmag.gov

Charles F. Noble, Esq.                                               Peter J. Gould, Esq.
CCAE PG                                                                  Box 34127
409 E. Palace Avenue, Unit 2                                     Santa Fe, NM 87594-4 127
Santa Fe, NM 87501                                                 pgouldlaw@aol.corn
c-m-k@nisn.com

Mary Homan, AC 02                                                      Thomas Domme, AC 02
Manager, Regulatory Affairs                                            Vice President & General Counsel
New Mexico Gas Company                                             New Mexico Gas Company
P0 Box 97500                                                                PO Box 97500
Albuquerque, NM 87 199-7500                                       Albuquerque, NM 87199-7500
Marv.homan@nmgco.com                                             Thomas.domne@nmgco.com

Anastasia S. Stevens                                                      Mona Tierney-Lloyd
Keleher & McLeod, P.A.                                                   Sr. Manger Western Regulatory Affairs
P0 Box AA                                                                      EnerNOC, Inc.
Albuquerque, NM 87103                                                  P0 Box 378
ast@keleher-Iaw.com                                                    Cayucos, CA 93439
                                                                                      Mtierney-l loyd@enernoc.com

E-Mail Only

Joanne Reuter                                                                 Ed Reyes
Reuter Legal & Consulting Services                                   Comverge, Inc.
joannecreuter@corncast.net                                           ereyes@cornverge.com

Howard Geller                                                                 Tom Singer
SWEEP                                                                            NRDC
hgeller@swenergy.org                                                      tsinger@nrdc.org

William Payne
Bpayne37@corncast. net

Hand Deliver To:                                                                Hand Deliver To:

James Brack                                                                      Nancy Bums, Esq.
New Mexico Public Regulation Commission                          New Mexico Public Regulation Commission
1120 Paseo  De Peralta                                                      1120 Paseo De Peralta
Santa Fe, NM 87501                                                          Santa Fe, NM 87501
Jim.Brack@state.nrn. us                                                     Nancy.Burns@state.nm.us

Hand Deliver To:                                                                 Hand Deliver To:
Leslie Padilla                                                                        Robert Hirasuna
NM Public Regulation Commission                                        New Mexico Public Regulation  Commission
1120 Paseo de Peralta                                                        1120 Paseo De Peralta
Santa Fe, NM 87501                                                           Santa Fe, NM 87501
LesliePadilla@state.nm.us                                                    Robert.Hirasuna@state.nm.us

Hand Deliver To:                                                                 Hand Deliver To:
Jeff Primm                                                                          Ashley C. Schannauer
NM Public Regulation Commission                                        NM Public Regulation Commission
1120 Paseo de Peralta                                                        1120 Paseo de Peralta
Santa Fe, NM 87501                                                           Santa Fe, NM 87501
Jeff.primm@state.nni. us                                                     Ash1ey.Schannauer@state.nni.us

Dated this 5zh day of July, 2011.

By:
Rebecca Dempsey
Cuddy & McCarthy,
Post Office Box 4160
Santa Fe, NM 87502-4 160
(505) 988-4476
(505) 954-7373 (Fax)
rdernpsey@cuddymccarthy.com


Official service list sent at request by PRC chief counsel Robert Hirasuna.


 





Wednesday July 6, 2011 11:39





Email service didn't work in all cases. We need to document before reading Fenton's email.

Robert Ray and Tom Tomassi concealed carry handgun classes both advised. Think ahead.

You will not have time to analyze situation so be prepared to act on surrounding signals.

 


Saturday July 16, 2011 06:23

Attempted theft of spare tire discovered on return to Albuqerque Journal Center train station. Wheel lock nut prevented theft.

Tom and Ray emailed.


http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#deny

BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE: THE ERA OF SMALL THINKING IS OVER looks to be populated by the liberal arts 'educated.'





The global clean energy industry is set for a major crash. The reason is simple. Clean energy is still much more expensive and less reliable than coal or gas, and in an era of heightened budget austerity the subsidies required to make clean energy artificially cheaper are becoming unsustainable.

Liberal arts 'education' components: Memorize, speculate, emote, then interpret.

Most a BS artists whose mouths are open a disportionate amount of time.

San Diego state college professor received an article rejection which read 'the proportion of data to interpretation is unfavorable.'

 



NMAC 1.2.2.23A is back.

Below is reason we need NMAC.
1.2.2.31 INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS FROM RULINGS OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER:

A. General:

(1) Rulings of the presiding officer during the course of a proceeding may only be appealed as provided in this rule.

(2) The commission does not favor interlocutory appeals from the rulings of a presiding officer and expects that appeals will be taken only in extraordinary circumstances. The movant in any such appeal bears the burden of establishing grounds for review and reversal of a ruling of the presiding officer made in the course of the proceeding.

B. Motion to presiding officer to permit appeal:

(1) Any party or the staff may, during a proceeding, move that the presiding officer permit appeal to the commission from a ruling of the presiding officer. The motion must demonstrate that:

(a) the ruling involves a controlling question of law or policy as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal to the commission from the ruling may materially advance the ultimate disposition of the proceeding; or

(b) circumstances exist which make prompt commission review of the contested ruling necessary to prevent irreparable harm to any person.

(2) The motion must be filed in writing within three (3) days of the date of an oral ruling or service of a written ruling.

(3) Upon receipt of a motion to permit appeal, the presiding officer shall determine according to the standards of Paragraph (1) of Subsection B of 1.2.2.31 NMAC whether to permit appeal of the ruling to the commission. The presiding officer need not consider any response to the motion.

(4) If the presiding officer permits appeal the presiding officer shall transmit to the commission copies of the ruling being appealed, if written, or a summary of the ruling being appealed, if oral, and any findings of fact, conclusions of law, or opinion relating thereto together with the moving party’s motion under Paragraph (1) of Subsection B of 1.2.2.31 NMAC and any response permitted to the motion. The presiding officer may also, but is not required to, transmit to the commission a memorandum setting forth the relevant issues and an explanation of the rulings on the issues.

(5) If the presiding officer does not issue an order under Paragraph (3) of Subsection B of 1.2..2.31 NMAC within fifteen (15) days after the motion is filed, the motion is deemed denied. The movant may appeal denial to the commission within three (3) days of:

(a) the date the motion is deemed denied;

(b) the date the motion is denied by oral ruling; or

(c) the date a written order denying the motion is served, appeal the denial to the commission.

C. Commission action:

(1) Unless the commission acts upon an appeal permitted by a presiding officer under Paragraph (4) of Subsection B of 1.2.2.31 NMAC or upon an appeal taken from the presiding officer’s denial of a motion to permit appeal under Paragraph (5) of Subsection B of 1.2.2.31 NMAC within fifteen (15) days after the date the appeal is permitted under Paragraph (4) of Subsection B of 1.2.2.31 NMAC or an appeal is taken under Paragraph (5) of Subsection B of 1.2.2.31 NMAC, the ruling of the presiding officer will be reviewed in the ordinary course of the proceeding as if an appeal had not been made.

(2) In the event the commission decides in its discretion to hear an appeal, it may also in its discretion:

(a) review the motions, briefs, and other documents which were before the presiding officer when the presiding officer issued the order being appealed;

(b) require that the presiding officer transmit to the commission a memorandum explaining the ruling being appealed;

(c) require submission of briefs by staff and the parties; or

(d) direct such other submissions as will assist in its consideration of the issues.

D. Appeal not to suspend proceeding: Any decision by a presiding officer to permit appeal or by the commission to hear an appeal under the provisions of this rule governing interlocutory appeals from rulings of the presiding officer will not suspend the proceeding unless otherwise ordered by the presiding officer or the commission.

[1.2.2.31 NMAC - Rp, 17 NMAC 1.2.33, 9-1-08]

.2.2.37 COMMISSION ORDERS, EXCEPTIONS, AND REHEARINGS:

A. Commission orders:

(1) The commission will issue its order in writing in every proceeding. The order shall contain separately stated findings of fact and, in the commission’s discretion, conclusions of law, or combined findings and conclusions. The commission may in its discretion issue an oral decision prior to the issuance of its written order. The timeliness of applications for rehearing and notices of appeal shall be calculated from the date the commission issues its written order. The date a written order is issued is the date when the written order, signed under the seal of the commission, has been filed with the chief clerk or the chief clerk's designee.

(2) The commission may adopt a hearing examiner’s recommended decision. If a recommended decision is adopted in its entirety the commission’s order shall so state. Where the only changes between the commission order and the hearing examiner’s decision are those to correct grammatical or typographical errors, the commission’s order shall so state.

(3) The commission may issue an order which makes reference to the recommended decision and indicate disagreements with the hearing examiner and the commission may make further or modified findings and conclusions based on the record.

B. Issuance of recommended decisions: A hearing examiner shall issue a recommended decision. The recommended decision shall be served on all parties to and the staff in the proceeding and shall contain separately stated findings of fact and conclusions of law.

C. Exceptions to recommended decisions:

(1) Filing requirements:

(a) Unless otherwise ordered by the commission or presiding officer exceptions may be filed by staff or by any party within thirteen (13) days after the recommended decision is issued.

(b) Except by prior written approval of the commission or presiding officer, exceptions shall be no longer than forty (40) pages. A summary of argument identifying with particularity and numbering the points excepted to of no more than five (5) pages shall be included with the exceptions and does not count toward the forty (40) page limit.

(c) Unless otherwise ordered by the commission or presiding officer, responses to exceptions may be filed within eight (8) days after the exceptions have been filed. Except by prior written approval of the commission or presiding officer, responses to exceptions shall be no longer than thirty-five (35) pages. A summary of argument of no more than three (3) pages shall be included with a response and does not count toward the thirty-five (35) page limit.

(d) Replies to responses to exceptions shall not be filed without leave of the commission or presiding officer. Except by prior written approval of the commission or presiding officer, replies to responses shall be no longer than fifteen (15) pages. A summary of argument of no more than two (2) pages shall be included with a reply and does not count toward the fifteen (15) page limit. Replies to responses to exceptions shall be filed within thirteen (13) days of service of the response, or such other time period as the commission or presiding officer may prescribe.

(e) Any exception, response, or reply ten (10) pages long or longer shall include a table of contents listing the points made and authorities relied on. A table of contents shall not count toward any page limitation.

(2) Contents: Responses shall not raise for the first time matters which were not raised in the exceptions of a party or the staff. Exceptions and any responses must specifically set forth:

(a) the precise portions of the proposed decision to which the exception is taken or response to exception is made;

(b) the reason for the exception or response;

(c) authorities on which the party or staff relies and specific citations to the record in the form required by Subsection D of 1.2.2.34 NMAC.

(d) In rate cases, reconciliation statements containing the information listed in Subsection F of 1.2.2.36 NMAC.

(3) Copies: Exceptions and responses shall be filed and be accompanied by a certificate of service. The original and five (5) copies shall be filed unless otherwise ordered by the commission or presiding officer.

D. Oral argument to commission after recommended decision: Any party or staff may petition the commission for oral argument after the issuance of a recommended decision. Such request may be included in a brief on exceptions or a response but must be filed no later than the last day to file responses. The commission in its discretion may allow oral argument. If it allows oral argument, it may in its discretion conduct the argument by telephone conference call.

E. Reopening proceedings:

(1) Motion to reopen: Before the issuance of a commission order or after the issuance of a recommended decision, staff or a party to a proceeding may file a motion to reopen the proceeding for the taking of additional evidence.

(2) Allegations: Such motion shall specify those facts claimed to constitute grounds in justification thereof, including material changes of fact or law alleged to have occurred since the conclusion of the public hearing, and shall contain a brief statement of proposed additional evidence and an explanation as to why such evidence was not previously produced.

(3) Responses: Within thirteen (13) days following the service of any motion to reopen staff or any other party may file responses thereto.

(4) Commission may reopen: The commission on its own motion may at any time reopen any proceeding when it has reason to believe that conditions of fact or law have so changed as to require, or that the public interest requires, the reopening of such proceeding.

F. Rehearing:

(1) Motion for rehearing:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in Sections 62-10-16 and 62-11-1 NMSA 1978, after an order has been issued by the commission in a proceeding staff or any party to the proceeding may within ten (10) days after the issuance of the order move for rehearing of the order with respect to any matter determined in the proceeding.

(b) The motion shall specify the matters upon which the movant requests rehearing and the ground or grounds on which the movant considers the order to be unlawful, unjust, or unreasonable with regard to each such matter.

(2) Responses: Any party or staff may file a response in writing within five (5) days, or within thirteen (13) days if Sections 62-10-16 and 62-11-1 NMSA 1978 apply, which opposes or supports the motion for rehearing. Replies to responses shall not be permitted without leave of the commission or presiding officer.

(3) New evidence: A motion for rehearing may seek modification of the order without introduction of additional evidence. If the movant or any party or staff who opposes or supports the motion seeks to introduce additional evidence on any matter, the new evidence must be specified and must be supported by affidavit and a statement of the reasons why the new evidence was not previously introduced. Any new evidence furnished in support of the motion or response shall be considered by the commission only for purposes of the commission’s decision on the motion and shall not be considered as evidence pertaining to the order that the commission previously had issued.

(4) Effect of filing motion: The filing of a motion for rehearing shall not excuse staff or a party from complying with or obeying any order or any requirement of an order of the commission, nor shall it operate in any manner to stay or postpone the enforcement thereof except as the commission may by order direct as provided by law.

(5) Oral argument: If the commission in its discretion grants oral argument on a motion for rehearing of the commission’s order, said order shall not thereby be vacated.

(6) Disposition of motion for rehearing:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 62-10-16 NMSA 1978, the commission may grant or deny the motion at any time within twenty (20) days after the final order has been issued and prior to the expiration of the period prescribed for filing of responses. If the commission does not act on a motion for rehearing within twenty (20) days after the final order has been issued, the motion shall be deemed denied.

(b) The commission may limit the rehearing to some or all of the matters raised in the motion or may expand the rehearing to include other matters determined in the proceeding.

(c) On rehearing the commission in its discretion may receive some or all of the new evidence specified in the motions or responses subject to cross-examination, may expand the rehearing to include additional evidence, or may restrict the rehearing to modification of its order without introduction of new evidence.

(d) If the rehearing is limited to modification of the order without introduction of new evidence, all parties and staff will have an opportunity to oppose or support the proposed modification, but the rehearing will be decided without oral argument or public hearing unless the commission directs otherwise.

(e) If the commission grants the motion for rehearing in whole or in part, the order being reheard shall be deemed vacated and no order or decision at that time shall exist in the proceeding.

(7) New order: After any rehearing the commission shall enter a new order which may incorporate by reference any portion of the previously issued order which the commission had vacated.

G. Errata notice:

(1) The commission, the commission chairman, or, in the absence of the chairman any other commissioner, may correct typographical errors, omissions, or other non-substantial errors in commission orders through the issuance of errata notices. A presiding officer may also correct typographical errors, omissions, or other non-substantial errors in their orders through the issuance of errata notices. The issuance of an errata notice shall not affect the finality of the decision or order corrected.

(2) A party to a formal proceeding or staff may correct typographical errors, omissions, or other non-substantial errors in its pleadings or documents through the filing of an errata notice, which shall conform to the rule governing pleadings.

H. Notice of appeal: Notices of appeal of commission decisions shall be filed pursuant to applicable statutes, including but not limited to Section 53-13-2 NMSA 1978, Section 59A-52-22 NMSA 1978, Section 62-11-1 NMSA 1978, Section 63-9-16 NMSA 1978, Section 63-9A-14 NMSA 1978, Section 63-9B- 9 NMSA 1978, Section 63-9H-12 NMSA 1978, Section 70-3-15 NMSA 1978, Section 65-2A-35 NMSA 1978, and Section 63-7-1.1 NMSA 1978.

I. Docketing of submissions in compliance with and motions for variances from final orders:

(1) Submissions in compliance with and motions for variances from commission final orders shall be filed under the same case number as that of the final order. A certificate of filing and service stating that the compliance submission has been filed shall be filed and served on staff and all other parties to that case. Motions for variances shall be served on staff and all parties to the case.

(2) Requests for extensions of time to meet compliance provisions contained in final orders of the commission must be in writing and must explain why an extension of time is being requested. Requests shall be filed under the same case number as that of the final order. The chief of staff has the authority to grant such requests.

[1.2.2.37 NMAC - Rp, 17 NMAC 1.2.39, 9-1-08]

 
We have until July 18 to reply to PNM obection.
1.2.2.12 MOTIONS:

A. Motions generally:

(1) Motions may be made at any time during the course of a proceeding. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the grounds for a motion are known to the movant prior to public hearing, the motion shall be made prior to public hearing except upon good cause shown. The commission discourages any delay in the filing of a motion once grounds for the motion are known to the movant.

(2) Any motion made prior to public hearing must be made in writing. Motions made orally during a public hearing must, if the commission or presiding officer requires, also be filed in writing.

(3) Motions must clearly state the relief sought, the grounds therefor, whether the motion is opposed, and if so, by whom.

(4) All motions not specifically acted upon shall be deemed disposed of consistent with the final order of the commission in the proceeding. Motions based on factual allegations that do not appear of record shall be supported by affidavit filed along with the motion.

B. Motions to dismiss: Staff or a party to a proceeding may at any time move to dismiss a portion or all of a proceeding for lack of jurisdiction, failure to meet the burden of proof, failure to comply with the rules of the commission, or for other good cause shown. The presiding officer may recommend dismissal or the commission may dismiss a proceeding on their own motion.

C. Responses to motions:

(1) Response times:

(a) On motions made thirteen (13) or more days prior to a public hearing, staff and parties wishing to respond must respond in writing within thirteen (13) days of service of the motion or before the public hearing commences, whichever occurs first.

(b) On motions made subsequent to a public hearing, unless the motion is a motion for rehearing filed pursuant to Subsection F of 1.2.2.37 NMAC, staff and parties wishing to respond must respond in writing within thirteen (13) days of service of the motion.

(c) On motions made within thirteen (13) days of or during a public hearing, responses shall be made within such time as directed by the commission or presiding officer.

(d) Replies to responses shall not be filed without leave of the commission or presiding officer. Replies to responses shall be filed within thirteen (13) days of service of the response, or such other time period as the commission or presiding officer may prescribe.

(e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, staff and parties wishing to respond to motions pertaining to discovery requests or the answers thereto, including but not limited to motions to compel, motions for sanctions and motions for protective orders, must respond to the motion within eight (8) days of service of the motion unless the commission or presiding officer directs otherwise.

(2) Failure to make a timely response shall be deemed a waiver of the right to respond.

(3) Written responses based on factual allegations that do not appear of record shall be supported by affidavit filed along with the response.

D. Briefs: Motions seeking extensions of time or continuances and like motions directed to the discretion of the commission or presiding officer in procedural matters need not be accompanied by briefs. Unless otherwise provided in this rule or waived by the commission or presiding officer, other motions must be accompanied by a brief, including points and authorities, addressed to the issues raised by the motion. Responses to a motion should similarly be accompanied by a brief, including points and authorities.

E. Opposed and unopposed motions:

(1) The movant shall make a good faith effort to determine whether a contemplated motion will be opposed.

(2) If a motion will not be opposed, the movant shall so state in the motion, shall accompany the motion with a proposed order, and need not file a brief in support of the motion. The proposed order must be signed by all parties and staff unless the motion seeks an extension of time or a continuance or is similarly directed to the discretion of the commission or presiding officer in procedural matters.

(3) Opposed motions shall state affirmatively that concurrence of other parties and staff has been requested but denied or shall state why no request for concurrence was made. Proposed orders need not be submitted with opposed motions unless the commission or presiding officer directs otherwise.

F. Oral argument:

(1) Motions will be decided without oral argument or public hearing unless the commission or presiding officer directs otherwise.

(2) Oral argument or public hearing may be conducted by telephone conference call at the discretion of the commission or presiding officer.

(3) Staff and parties waive the opportunity to request oral argument or an evidentiary public hearing on a motion unless the request is stated in the motion or response to the motion.

[1.2.2.12 NMAC - Rp, 17 NMAC 1.2.12, 9-1-08]



:)



Motion for Leave to Intervene
in
Case No. 11-00123-UT

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#motion3

William H Payne, author of Alternate Report, Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027 and David B. McCoy, Executive Director, Citizen Action New Mexico in compliance with NMAC 1.2.2.23A hereby request to intervene.



Drafts and notes



Alternate Report, Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027 PNM load forecaster Steve Martin showed that growiing number of customers [increased construction], increased size of dwellings, increased use of electronic devices and increased air conditioning penetration were the main causes of peak demand.



Forty-one Kill A Watt meters were all checked out from the Juan Tabo Albuquerque Public Library branch, reference librarian reported.

Thursday July 28, 2011 12:46



Wednesday, July 27, 2011

First Solar, Inc. announced it set a new world record for cadmium-telluride (CdTe) photovoltaic (PV) solar cell efficiency, reaching 17.3 percent with a test cell constructed using commercial-scale manufacturing equipment and materials. The test cell’s performance, confirmed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), far surpassed the previous record of 16.7 percent set in 2001.



http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#first1





http://www.prosefights.org/pease/pease.htm


Bill was at Purdue fom 1959 until 1963.



http://www.engr.uidaho.edu/thompson/

http://www.prosefights.org/unmineable/unmineable.htm#jss

PNM testimonials under scrutiny.

Who wrote? Marita Noon wrote. Why?

Renewables Mean Higher Power Bills by By Marita Noon / Executive director, Energy Makes America Great Inc. Albuquerque Journal Thursday July 28, 2011.

Energy Makes American Great











National Gas Power Plants' Fuel of Choice

After the Debt Ceiling Fiasco


http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#thompson

Testimonial BS

PNM Expects to Meet Growing Electric Demand With New Natural Gas Plants, Increased Energy Efficiency and More Renewable Energy

ploy could be used to try to prevent us from recovery of our stolen $22,036. "We took a vote. You lost. You don't get your money back."




dthomp@thuntek.net

Tuesday July 26, 2011 10:31

Hello Mr Thompson,

I assume you are David E. Thompson, PhD Sandia Park who participated in the recent PNM electric IRP.

Question you may be able to answer is:

Where technical experts included to comment on availability and cost of natural gas in the years 2015 through 2026?

Reason I ask is New York Times reporter Ian Urbina is sounding alarms on natural gas.
'
Here are some quotes from Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush
Natural gas companies have been placing enormous bets on the wells they are drilling, saying they will deliver big profits and provide a vast new source of energy for the United States.

But the gas may not be as easy and cheap to extract from shale formations deep underground as the companies are saying, according to hundreds of industry e-mails and internal documents and an analysis of data from thousands of wells. ...

But if natural gas ultimately proves more expensive to extract from the ground than has been predicted, landowners, investors and lenders could see their investments falter, while consumers will pay a price in higher electricity and home heating bills.

Please ack if you receive this email.

bill







Just two recent EPA regulations – the Utility MACT Rule (“maximum achievable control technology”) and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule – could cause the loss of over 1.4 million jobs by 2020 and increase electricity rates by over 20 percent in some parts of the country, according to initial findings by National Economic Research Associates (NERA). According to these initial findings, this could mean job losses of 9,000 for New Mexico. You can view the state-by-state employment losses here: http://americaspowerarmy.org/pdf/Employmentlosses15states--Final.pdf

While EPA claims the regulations would create a handful of jobs, NERA’s initial analysis projects that four jobs are lost for every job that might be created. New Mexico is hurt by these regulations because 71% of the state’s electricity comes from coal. And coal-based power plants are the target of these new regulations.

From: "Scott Barker, America's Power Army" sbarker@americaspowerarmy.org
To: bpayne37@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 4:43:12 AM Subject: New Mexico will lose 9,000 jobs under new U.S. EPA regulations 

Monday July 18, 2011 09:50

Too many liberal arts 'educated' lawyers?

Counting the number of lawyers copied in the service list is a fact.

Lawyers Steven Michel and Jeff Taylor are listsed on both service lists.


That's New Mexico AG lawyer Jeff Taylor - long hair - and lawyer Steven Michel with moustche in 2008 PNM electric irp meeting.
Most vocal at the electric IRP meetings, all of about 18 of them, were lawyer Steve Michel,
"We're happy with it, or with most parts of it," said Steve Michel of Western Resource Advocates, an environmental policy group. ...

John Fleck of the Albuquerque Journal reported.
Craig O'Hare, and Tom Singer. They are included lone the distribution list of the PPRC PBN Rate Hearings.

attended most of the 2008 PNM electric IRP meetings.

That's Ms Bixby to the left of Arthur Morales and Prasad Potturi.

in 2008 PNM electric IRP meeting.

Sunday July 17, 2011 17:02

Deaton's uninivited letter will not be opened until we deem it time to open.

Refusal of Deaton's certified letter was an option.

But we decided to accept in hope that Deaton has the intelligence to see merits of peaceful settlement before matters get far worse.

'Far worse' may include WWIII if CIA Veteran Robert Baer is correct?




Sunday July 24, 2011 08:10

Then federal magistrate judge William Deaton and judge John Edwards Conway violated the US constitution by not proceeding to a paid for trial by jury guaranteed inviolate by the US Constitution to proceed. Look at JURY DEMAND filed on 02/19/1993 and docketed on 02/22/1993 at entry 15.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/conway/conway.htm

The Terrorist Threat We’re Ignoring

Snohomish County PUD: working under the hood, first
Substation automation, fiber and sensors come before AMI




Viz is still required. Note convergence of PNM activity and Deaton letter.

Will Deaton's letter make matters worse or better?

The Breakthrough Institute Let's see how it does.

Federal Magistrate judge William Deaton and judge John Edwards Conway caused the NSA lawsuit.

D.C.No. CIV-91-614-JG
and 92cv1452.

Viz was required.




William Deaton bio.



http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#deaton

Protecting Customer Privacy in Smart Grid





Mr Deaton was federal magistate judge for federal judge John Edwards Conway.

Santa Fe lawyer Stephen Aarons,



Aarons finest
August 10, 1994 Plaintiff's lawyer Stephen D. Aarons finally files MOTION to reconsider protective order.

Aarons writes:

1 Whether by inadvertence, the press of federal caseloads, or design, the court suggested at a pretrial conference in May 1993, that both parties suspend further discovery until it ruled on defendants' summary judgment motion. Discovery has ceased ever since.

2 Nearly one year ago, on August 19, 1993, the court issued its amended protective order, effectively sealing all substantive pleadings in this case.

3 Before issuing that order, the court considered plaintiff's written response against sealing. Judge Conway informed all counsel in open court that James R. Gosler would be permitted to deliver unknown documents to Judge Conway at time and place certain.

4 Judge Conway apparently reviewed those documents in camera without counsel for plaintiff.

5 The communication with Gosler constitutes an improper, ex parte communication with the one defendant who has been charged in plaintiff's amended complaint with the most outrageous and culpable acts.

6 Given the nature of this lawsuit, where defendants allege some sort of security infraction by plaintiff as justification for his firing, such communication under the guise of national security violated plaintiff's due process rights. Plaintiff has been prejudiced by this improper communication coupled with protracted delays. ...

WHEREFORE Plaintiff William H. Payne requests that:

A Judge Conway recuse himself from further participation in these proceeding, based on improper communication with defendant Gosler,

B The newly designated judge reconsider the standing protective order without recourse to ex parte communications with a named defendant, or in the alternative, allow counsel for plaintiff to review and respond to such communications, and,

C The court deny defendants' long-standing motion for summary judgment, set new discovery deadlines under the circumstances, and grant such further relief as justice requires.

Aarons Law Firm
Counsel for Plaintiff


Payne, a Sandia National Laboratory lawyer met in Deton's federal office in 1992 for a pretrial settlement conference.

No settlement. And no paid for trail by jurt guaranteed inviolate by US Constitution.

Mr Deaton was given a copy of Swiss Radio International Hans Buehler mp3 radio programs [33 megabytes].

10/6/95 [890076] NOTE: THIS ENTIRE CASE IS SEALED. Terminated on the Merits after Submission Without Oral Hearing; Judgment Affirmed; Written, Signed, Unpublished. Moore, authoring judge; Barrett; Weis. [94-2205]


Israel Is Likely to Attack Iran, CIA Veteran Robert Baer Warns

Posted on Jul 12, 2011

U.S. Air Force / Staff Sgt. Stephany D. Richards

Robert Baer, the veteran CIA operations officer whose book was the basis for the film “Syriana,” says an Israeli attack on Iran is likely and warns that the U.S. could be drawn into yet another conflict.


Urban Survival citation Monday July 4, 2011. 
If you're sitting around with a few minutes on your hands, or more like 15 to be precise, you might want to listen to the interview with Dr. Richard Sauder over on the Time Monk Radio Network here.

This is the Sauder referenced in 1, 2, and 3.

Sauder described destruction of one of America's nuclear aircraft carriers at the Frontier resturant in 2008 via a technicolor dream.

Dead in the water, listing, smoke rising.

Sauder mentioned possibility of a nuclear reactor meltdown.

Sauder may be posing as a 'nut case' for the government to try to gather information?

Dave McCoy sat in same booth at Frontier when Sauder related 'dream'.


Below arrived Saturday July 16, 2011.











Sunday July 10, 2011 06:36

Lots of money to be made from legislative mandates.

The 2007 federal energy legislation phases out the old-style incandescent bulbs over three years, starting with 100-watt bulbs next Jan. 1. Supporters said that consumers will be able to buy a new kind of incandescent bulb that is more efficient and cost about $1 more. The latest model — shown off to lawmakers recently — surrounds the filament with a halogen capsule that uses fewer watts.


The world of politics is fueled by hyperbole, but the new Cross State Air Pollution Rule will have real consequences for Central Texas. Exactly what they will be; however, is a difficult question. ...

It's kicked off a heated exchange, with many Texas lawmakers accusing the EPA of waging a "War on Texas." In a strongly worded statement issued Friday, U.S. Congressman John Carter charged, "This rule promises job losses, higher electric bills, and potential power shortages."

Friday July 1, 2011 08:38


Lawyers want control over energy economics.

new energy economy.





NEE HAS AN EAR - The state Supreme Court agrees to hear the New Energy Economy's case to intervene in an appeal filed by Public Service Company of New Mexico concerning a greenhouse gas emission reduction rule adopted by the state Environmental Improvement Board last year. NEE was the group that petitioned the EIB to adopt the rule, but a Court of Appeals ruling wouldn't let it participate in the case as an intervenor.  


Quaneco phone message.

Area code 210.

Ms Martinez phone call about Quaneco.

Short selling mechanics, insider trading and First Solar MorganStanley/SmithBarney audio.



 





http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/completely-wasteful-steven-rattner-slams-govt-support-corn-110457357.html%20?sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode


First Solar, Inc. (FSLR).








Wednesday June 29, 2011 11:19

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#shannauer


ashley.shannauer@state.nm.us

Hello Ms Shannauer,

Movant and lawyer Mr McCoy suggested
I think probably a motion with the hearing officer for discovery is necessary unless a schedule has already been set. Send an email to whoever is the HO and ask if there is discovery ongoing or if it will be scheduled. Otherwise they will probably try to dodge the questions as proprietary or something.

1 Is discovery ongoing in Case No. 11-00123-UT?

2 If discovery is not yet scheduled, is discovery planned?

3 If discovery is planned, then when will it be scheduled?

If discovery is ongoing, then we ask that we be provided all discovery documents either by mail or email.

We started discovery.
Tuesday June 28, 2011 10:47

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#first1

and will copy those who are on email distribution.

I am guessing at your email address so please send an ack so that I will know you received this.

Previous email to do did not 'bounce' but you did not acknowledge receipt of it.

Thanks in advance.

bill

distribution


Ben Phillips Ben.phillips@pnmresources.com;       
James Dittmer jdittmer@utilitech.net;
Randy Childress randy@childresslaw.com;            
Evan Evans eevans1@epelectric .com;
Stacey Goodwin Stacey@childresslaw.com;           
Steven Michel smichel@westemresources.org
Justin Lesky Jlesky@leskylawoffice.com;               
Helga Schimkat Schinikat_law@comcast.net.;
Bill Templeman wtempleman@cmtisantafe.com;    
Glenda Murphy gmurphy@westernresources.org
Mark Fenton mark.fenton@pnmresources.com;       
Karen White Karen.white@tyndall.af.mil;
Saul J. Ramos sramos@doeal.gov;                        
Tom Singer tsinger@nrdc.org
Thomas Domme Thomas.domme@nmgco.com;        
Tammy Fiebelkorn TammyFiebelkom@swenergy.org
Jill Cliburn jkcliburn@gmail.com;                           
Nancy Long lpk@nm.net
Marcos Martinez mdmartinez@santafenm.gov;        
Nick Schiavo naschiavo@santafenm.gov
Stephen Thies sthies@ci.alamogordo.nm.us;           
Bill Brancard bill.brancard@state.nm.us
Jeffrey Fornaciari jfornaciari@hinklelawfirm.com;      
Brian Kalcic excel.consulting@sbcglobal.net
Rebecca Dempsey rdempsey@cuddymccarthy.com;   
William Dunkel williamdunkel@lycos .com;
Anastasia Stevens ast@keleher-law.com;                
M. Tiemey-Lloyd Mtierney-lloyd@enernoc.com;
Robert D. Kidd rkidd@cabq.gov;                             
Anna Caster arina@luzenergy.com
Jeff Taylor jtaylor@nmag.gov;                               
Charles Kolbeng ckolberg@avcwua.org;
Loretta Martinez lmartinez@nmag.gov;                   
Jeffrey H. Haas jefThhaas@aol .com;
Daniel Naijar vnajjar@aol.com;                            
Sanders Moore sanders@environmentnewmexico.org
Kurt J. Boebm kboehm@bkllawfirm.com;                 
Stephen Fischmann Stephen.fischmann@gmail.com;
Peter Gould pgouldlaw@aol.com;                           
Jim Cotton ctcolumbia@aol.com;
Nann Winter nwinter@stelznerlaw.com;                  
Joe Herz jaherz@sawvel.com;
Jeffrey Albnight jalbnight@lrlaw.com;                     
Charles Kolberg ckolberg@abcwua.org;
Patrick T. Qrtiz POrtiz@cuddymccarthy.com;            
Claudia Borchert livlaflove@gmail.com;
Mary Homan Mary.homan@nmgco.com                    
Jay Kuniar jkumar@etcinc.biz
Clyde Worthen cfw@keleher-law.com                      
Ed Reyes ereyes@comverge.com
Bruce Throne btbroneatty@newmexico.com              
Keith Freischlag kfreischlag@swenergy.org
Clyde Worthen cfw@keleher-law.com;                     
Kevin Higgins khiggins@energystrat.com
Steven Asher steveasher@comcast.net;                  
David Van Winkle david@vw77.com
Patrick Griebel Patrick@pj griebel .com;                   
Laura Sanchez lsanchez@nrdc.org;
Jason Keyes Jkeyes@keyesandfox.com;                   
John Curl jcurl@westemresources.org;
Stephen Chriss Stephen.cbriss@wal-mart.com;          
Michael McElrath Michael_McElrath@fini.com;
Michael Dirmejer mdirmeie@gsb.uchicago.edu           
Howard Geller hgeller@swenergy.org;
Richard D. Vergas rvergas@doeal.gov;                      
Mariel Nanasi Mariel@seedsbeneaththesnow.com;
Rick Chamberlain Rdclaw@swbell.net                       
Jami Porter Lara jporterlara@gmail.com;
Lewis 0. Campbell Icampbell4@comcast.net;             
Barbara Alexander barbalex@ctel.net;
Charles F. Noble c-m-k@msn.com                            
Carmela Starace carmela@prosperityworks.net
Robert Hirasuna, Esq. Robert.Hirasuna@state.nm.us
anna.kippenbrock@state.nm.us
STATERULES@state.nm.us

Friday July 1, 2011 09:08

Viz is essential, even for The New Mexico Historical Bottle Society & Enchantment Insulator Society.

This table is located on the PRC rate page for visibility reasons.

And for recovery of our stolen $22,036.

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#brown



 
Essential non-gas-wating field trip to east mountains in hope of avoiding bad smoke in Abq on Wednesday morning June 29, 2011.

Drought is in New Mexico.

Home FOR SALE signs are plentiful in the New Mexico east mountain area.

Here is a home on Kings road to the north of Edgewood.




Just east is



Not working.

Carcases of Aermotor windmills litter New Mexico.

Wind turbines next?

Cerillos Mining museum visited.

Ms Patricia Brown remembered our blog Tiffany Blue 50% Turquoise and personal and 50% New Mexico legal history and gave us




Mrs Brown reported that they visited author Patricia McCraw in the Albuquerque south valley to buy more copies of Tiffany Blue which they sell.

cdn102@comcast.net
tkatonak@comcast.net
brownp52@yahoo.com

Smoke from Los Alamos fire seen south of Madrid, NM.



Essential non-gas-wasting about 93 mile field trip to Santo Domingo pueblo Thursday June 30, 2011 to view fire.



and a recently installed wind mill



The wind was blowing so hard that the windmill rotation governor forces the tail nearly parallel to the blades.

Mount Chalchihuitl seen on return to I 25.



Furthest to the right, I think.

Todd Brown guided Richard Hanson and me to the Chalchihuitl turquois mine.

Wednesday June 29, 2011 07:41

Yes to Violence, No to Sex



Wall Street's Irrational, Dangerous Hatred of Solar Stocks


Transforming the Customer Relationship: What Electric Utilities Must Do To Survive the 21st Century

Value of Solar Power Far Exceeds the Electricity


The Nine Lives of Ethanol Myths



 





Tuesday June 28, 2011 10:47

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#first1

info@firstsolar.com

Hello First Solar,

Solar arrays seen in person at the PNM Reeves and Los Lunas, NM sites prompts enquiry in our role as intervenor movants in New Mexico PRC Case No. 11-00123-UT .

1 What are panel length, width and thicknesses in inches?

2 What is the weight?

3 What is the part number?

4 What is the retail price?

5 What is the open circuit voltage as a function of insolation?

6 What is current and voltage as a function of resistive loads and insolation?

7 Assuming the formulas
Heat Rate (Energy Efficiency)

Overall thermal performance or energy efficiency for a power plant for a period can be defined as

fhr = H / E (1)

where

fhr = heat rate (Btu/kW, kJ/kW)

H = heat supplied to the power plant for a period (Btu, kJ)

E = energy output from the power plant in the period (kWh)

are correct, what is the energy efficiency of First Solar panels used in PNM arrays as a function of insolation?

If First Solar feels that the above equations do not apply, then please explain.

Please ack if you receive this email.

Thanks in advance.

bill


Making Solar Competitive

These guys are on the front line for getting our stolen $22,036 back.

 


Gone With the Papers


PNM solar array, Los Lunas, NM about Sunday June 5, 2011




Sunday June 26, 2011 20:35 

Urbina article seen in $6 NY Times newspaper at Albertson's.

A divided state Public Regulation Commission on Thursday gave El Paso Electric Co. final approval to build an $83.9 million power plant in Sunland Park.

The project had generated no controversy, but Commissioner Jason Marks made a last-minute attempt to delay construction.  
 


Natural gas companies have been placing enormous bets on the wells they are drilling, saying they will deliver big profits and provide a vast new source of energy for the United States.

But the gas may not be as easy and cheap to extract from shale formations deep underground as the companies are saying, according to hundreds of industry e-mails and internal documents and an analysis of data from thousands of wells. ...

But if natural gas ultimately proves more expensive to extract from the ground than has been predicted, landowners, investors and lenders could see their investments falter, while consumers will pay a price in higher electricity and home heating bills.



Natural gas wells are popping up like spring dandelions. Once-empty landscapes in Colorado, Texas, Pennsylvania and Wyoming are now dotted with thousands of wells.

But it's time to calm the frenzy. We need a more balanced look at what's to be gained -- and lost -- if we embrace natural gas too heartily. Despite its many positives, natural gas is no panacea for a country with a long history of over-dependence on fossil fuels that still hasn't come to grips with climate change. [Altenergy msm liberal arts 'educated' BS?]
 
Sunday June 26, 2011 11:42 
A divided state Public Regulation Commission on Thursday gave El Paso Electric Co. final approval to build an $83.9 million power plant in Sunland Park.

The project had generated no controversy, but Commissioner Jason Marks made a last-minute attempt to delay construction.  
 
Natural gas companies have been placing enormous bets on the wells they are drilling, saying they will deliver big profits and provide a vast new source of energy for the United States.

But the gas may not be as easy and cheap to extract from shale formations deep underground as the companies are saying, according to hundreds of industry e-mails and internal documents and an analysis of data from thousands of wells. ...

But if natural gas ultimately proves more expensive to extract from the ground than has been predicted, landowners, investors and lenders could see their investments falter, while consumers will pay a price in higher electricity and home heating bills.


  **

Saving BTUs is what we are all supposed to do. Perhaps for reasons of the US economy?

Then why is is US exporting coal to China?

LEER - We have shipped coal from Wyoming to China, ...

And

U.S. Natural Gas Exports by Country

U.S. Coal Exports

Thursday June 23, 2011 13:43

Proper service is absolutely essential in legal matters.













Talked to Dave McCoy.



Mr McCoy's suggested changes in .doc fomat.


In view of Martinez' response
Thursday June 23, 2011 12:38

We detect more lawyer intervention which are making matters WORSE.



Shaffer is in non-compliance with New Mexico law.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/prccrd/shaffer/shaffer.htm#shaffer2

Dave McCoy suggested strategy.

Let's see what Dave McCoy suggests next.



 

let's strength facts and reasons for facts.

Scott Barker
America's Power Army

McCoy changes included in below.

Let's edit

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#motion2

Motion for Leave to Intervene
in
Case No. 11-00123-UT

William H Payne, author of Alternate Report, Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027 and David B. McCoy, Executive Director, Citizen Action New Mexico in compliance with NMAC 1.2.2.23A
1.2.2.23 INTERVENORS AND COMMENTERS: A. Intervention: Any person other than staff and the original parties to a proceeding who desires to become a party to the proceeding may move in writing for leave to intervene in the proceeding.

(1) The motion for leave to intervene shall indicate the nature of the movant’s interest in the proceeding.

(2) The motion shall also comply with the provisions of this rule governing pleadings except that the motion shall indicate the facts relied upon as grounds for intervention.

(3) Motions for leave to intervene shall be served on all existing parties and other proposed intervenors of record.

state:

1 Movants' interest is to bring to attention to public and PNM rate payers possible large-scale solar generation of electricity fraud by New Mexico renewable energy mandates.

2 Fact 1 relies upon is misleading statement in paragraph 5 of NOTICE OF PROCEEDING AND HEARING
PNM states that its 2008 IRP showed that energy efficiency reduced the need for future generation plant additions and that the costs for capacity and energy that can be avoided through energy efficiency and demand management programs could result in a $390 Million net present value savings over the 20-year planning period.

PNM load forecaster Mr Steve Martin identified sources of demand for electricity on August 21, 2007, PNM Alvarado Square, Albuquerque, New Mexico


Mr Martin's foils were not included in the about 1 7/8 pound official report.

Perhaps curtailing sources of electricity demand identified by Mr Martin should be addressed as perhaps more important than energy efficiency and demand management?

Abstract explains reason for Alternate Report: Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027
Official Electric Integrated Resource Plan [IRP] for the Period 2008-2027 appears to be a product of a verbal faction of attendees of the about 17 sessions. Omission of what others consider important foils from Official report and elimination of which, we feel, are unessential foils in about 229 page report is an obligation to others to write an alternate report. Failure of the Official report to forecast available source of heat [BTUs] which is to be converted to electricity and to address the sources of increased demand, and to make practical arguments for feasibility of natural gas and alternate energy sources renders the Official Report about unusable.

2 Fact 2


asserts that Heat Rate does not apply to CSP or Photovoltaic generation of electricity. And wind too.

PNM Director, Advanced Generation Devlopment, Mr Greg Nelson and engineer Frank Currie both state in writing that Heat Rate only applies to electricity generation from combustible sources.

Mr Jake Rudisill, Vice President, Operation and Project Management of Meridian Energy USA emailed
From: "Jake Rudisill" j.rudisill@meridianenergyusa.com To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:37:20 PM
Subject: Heat Rate misconception

Mr. Payne,

The definition of heat rate is not the heat content of just the fossil fuel inputting the conversion system—it is the conversion efficiency of the system with whatever is the heat input. ...

We have been in the process, so far unsuccessful, of trying to determine who is right.

Resolution of the heat rate issue is important from the standpoint of justification for the rate increase that is being requested and will be used for large scale solar generation technology. ???

PNM has not provided a cost analysis of the efficiency of the provision of solar based generation of electricity in comparison with the available alternatives on any scientifically recognizable basis. ???

3 Fact 3 Liberal arts 'educated' conjectures.
From: “Jason Marks, PRC” Jason.Marks@state.nm.us
To: bpayne37@comcast.net, “David King, PRC” David.King@state.nm.us, “Jerome D Block, PRC” JeromeD.Block@state.nm.us>, Becenti@state.nm.us, “Sandy Jones, PRC” Sandy.Jones@state.nm.us
Cc: dave@radfreenm.org, nmusa@rt66.com, mhartranft@abqjournal.com, “Staci Matlock” smatlock@sfnewmexican.com>, amorales58@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:12:09 AM
Subject: Re: Large-scale solar generation of electricity fraud in New mexico?

Mr Payne:

I don’t understand your concerns. There are two basic solar electric technologies: photovoltaic panels (PV) and thermal concentrating solar power (CSP). The development and deployment in NM is focused on PV. Hundreds of homeowners with installed PV systems can tell you that their systems produce electricity in line with specifications, as proved by meters.

You (either an individual or a utility) buy a solar system for a certain price, you install it, and it generates electricity for 20 or 30 years or so, with minimal operating and maintenance costs. There are no fuel requirements (and thus no “heat rate”). When you spread the upfront costs over the system’s lifetime electric production and adjust for tax credits and REC incentives, you arrive at the cost per kwh. You get to decide if you think that cost per kwh is reasonable before you make the investment. There is no fraud.

Jason Marks

The above facts support the conclusion that the evidence for the rate increase is incomplete, incorrect and has not considered actual efficiencies and production costs related to existing alternatives. Peer review has not been performed for the PNM assumptions that no analysis for the factors of heat rate {and???] is necessary.

Submitted June 24, 2011 by certified mail.


________________________________________
William H Payne



________________________________________
David B McCoy

Thursday June 23, 2011 07:57


Our viz strategies for recovery of our stolen $22,036.00 appear to be working well.


Soaring silver prices are hampering the solar industry’s ability to compete with fossil fuels.

Panel makers consume about 11 percent of the world’s supply of silver, the material in solar cells that conducts electricity. The metal has appreciated 74 percent to $35.30 a troy ounce on average so far this year from $20.24 last year.


Thursday June 23, 2011 09:21

We've received emails and even one phone call from America's Power Army since its inception.





 


Getting our stolen $22,036 back requires strategy!




Renewables and Regulatory Labs

Thursday June 23, 2011 07:52

Scott Barker
America's Power Army

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#barker


Hello Mr Barker,

Port of St. Helens a potential candidate for a terminal to export coal to Asia and U.S. Coal Exports prompts us to ask America's Power Amy for its official position on exporting coal BTUs.

We visited the proposed Longview coal export site on Tuesday June 21, 2011.

Reason we ask is that New Mexico aspires to be the solar generation of electricity center of the US.

Electric rate payers may possibly be asked to subsidize wind and solar generation of electricity as evidence by a PNM request for rate increase.

New Mexicans are being led to believe that that there is an energy crisis which must be met by switch to altenergy mandated by New Mexico renewable energy laws.

EIA coal export data leads us to question whether there is an electric power crisis or not in the US.

So this is why we ask America's Power Amy help with our intervention motion.

May 24, 2011 is deadline for filing our motion.

Please ack if you receive this email.

Thanks in advance.

bill

Tuesday June 21, 2011 08:07
Tuesday June 21, 2011 17:10

Decommissioning Obsolete Power Plants -- Why do it Now?



"Modern combined cycle gas turbine technology is simply more efficient in the requirement for heat energy in the conversion to electricity (8,500 BTU per KWHr) than conventional steam or combustion turbine technology (>10,000 BTU per KWHr). "
It's still almost a miracle to be able to leave our home in Washington at 4PM and be in London at 6AM the following day. What a boost to our standard of living! This is the kind of miracle that high octane fossil fuel can give you. You have to burn a lot of energy in order to lift a giant vessel made of thin metal, filled with fat people off the ground. And then fly across the Atlantic Ocean with it!

You can't do that with solar power...or wood...or batteries charged up from hydroelectric power stations. You can only do it by reaching into the earth and using up some of its stored up calories. And you can only use those calories once. (For reasons we can't figure out at this hour, the law of conservation of energy doesn't seem to apply.)

Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning
June 21, 2011

We should be able to serve people by email.

Liberal art 'educated' Jason Marks states '(and thus no “heat rate”)' A legal or sociological opinion, no doubt.

Let's see about this Mr Marks and our stolen $22,036.

We would expect a similar liberal arts 'educated' response from Mr Marks about why our $22,036 was NOT' stolen.

No required-by-law response from employee Ms Shiela Shaffer yet.



 
Hello Martinez,

Thank you for your June 1, 2011 helpful response.

Here's a link to the current draft of our motion.

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#motion

We plan to mail certified the motion on June 24, 2011.

But we have a problem you may be able to help solve.

1.2.2.23 INTERVENORS AND COMMENTERS requires

(3) Motions for leave to intervene shall be served on all existing parties and other proposed intervenors of record.

Could you please forward this request to the appropriate parties at PRC so can we get addresses or email addresses 'all existing parties and other proposed intervenors of record' because we do not currently have this information.

Thanks in advance,

bill

This Hero Didn’t Stand a Chance. Viz is important in these matters.










Recovery of our stolen $22,036 back requires our knowledge of liberal arts 'educated' 'thinking'.

Dr Alan Zelicoff now in focus for Heat Rate truth determination.

Motion for Leave to Intervene
in
Case No. 11-00123-UT

William H Payne, author of Alternate Report, Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027 and David B. McCoy, Executive Director, Citizen Action New Mexico in compliance with NMAC 1.2.2.23A
1.2.2.23 INTERVENORS AND COMMENTERS: A. Intervention: Any person other than staff and the original parties to a proceeding who desires to become a party to the proceeding may move in writing for leave to intervene in the proceeding.

(1) The motion for leave to intervene shall indicate the nature of the movant’s interest in the proceeding.

(2) The motion shall also comply with the provisions of this rule governing pleadings except that the motion shall indicate the facts relied upon as grounds for intervention.

(3) Motions for leave to intervene shall be served on all existing parties and other proposed intervenors of record.

state:

1 Movants' interest is to bring to attention to public and PNM rate payers possible large-scale solar generation of electricity fraud by New Mexico renewable energy mandates which may be subsidized by PNM rate increases.

2 Fact 1 relies upon is misleading statement in paragraph 5 of NOTICE OF PROCEEDING AND HEARING
PNM states that its 2008 IRP showed that energy efficiency reduced the need for future generation plant additions and that the costs for capacity and energy that can be avoided through energy efficiency and demand management programs could result in a $390 Million net present value savings over the 20-year planning period.

PNM load forecaster Mr Steve Martin identified sources of demand for electricity on August 21, 2007, PNM Alvarado Square, Albuquerque, New Mexico


Mr Martin's foils were not included in the about 1 7/8 pound official report.

Perhaps curtailing sources of electricity demand identified by Mr Martin should be addressed as perhaps more important than energy efficiency and demand management?

Abstract explains reason for Alternate Report: Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027
Official Electric Integrated Resource Plan [IRP] for the Period 2008-2027 appears to be a product of a verbal faction of attendees of the about 17 sessions. Omission of what others consider important foils from Official report and elimination of which, we feel, are unessential foils in about 229 page report is an obligation to others to write an alternate report. Failure of the Official report to forecast available source of heat [BTUs] which is to be converted to electricity and to address the sources of increased demand, and to make practical arguments for feasibility of natural gas and alternate energy sources renders the Official Report about unusable.

2 Fact 2


asserts that Heat Rate does not apply to CSP or Photovoltaic generation of electricity. And wind too.

PNM Director, Advanced Generation Devlopment, Mr Greg Nelson and engineer Frank Currie both state in writing that Heat Rate only applies to electricity generation from combustible sources.

Mr Jake Rudisill, Vice President, Operation and Project Management of Meridian Energy USA emailed
From: "Jake Rudisill" j.rudisill@meridianenergyusa.com To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:37:20 PM
Subject: Heat Rate misconception

Mr. Payne,

The definition of heat rate is not the heat content of just the fossil fuel inputting the conversion system—it is the conversion efficiency of the system with whatever is the heat input. ...

We have been in the process, so far unsuccessful, of trying to determine who is right.

3 Fact 3 Liberal arts 'educated'
From: “Jason Marks, PRC” Jason.Marks@state.nm.us
To: bpayne37@comcast.net, “David King, PRC” David.King@state.nm.us, “Jerome D Block, PRC” JeromeD.Block@state.nm.us>, Becenti@state.nm.us, “Sandy Jones, PRC” Sandy.Jones@state.nm.us
Cc: dave@radfreenm.org, nmusa@rt66.com, mhartranft@abqjournal.com, “Staci Matlock” smatlock@sfnewmexican.com>, amorales58@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:12:09 AM
Subject: Re: Large-scale solar generation of electricity fraud in New mexico?

Mr Payne:

I don’t understand your concerns. There are two basic solar electric technologies: photovoltaic panels (PV) and thermal concentrating solar power (CSP). The development and deployment in NM is focused on PV. Hundreds of homeowners with installed PV systems can tell you that their systems produce electricity in line with specifications, as proved by meters.

You (either an individual or a utility) buy a solar system for a certain price, you install it, and it generates electricity for 20 or 30 years or so, with minimal operating and maintenance costs. There are no fuel requirements (and thus no “heat rate”). When you spread the upfront costs over the system’s lifetime electric production and adjust for tax credits and REC incentives, you arrive at the cost per kwh. You get to decide if you think that cost per kwh is reasonable before you make the investment. There is no fraud.

Jason Marks

may be incorrect and possibly indicate large-scale solar genernation of electricty fraud?

Facts 1, 2 and 3 may support conclusion that facts be weighed by honest technically-competent and other thinking people whose written decision are subject to international review and comment to reach proper conclusion on PNM rate increases?

Submitted June 24, 2011 by certified mail.


________________________________________
William H Payne



________________________________________
David B McCoy


Monday June 6, 2011 20:14



Can Bryson Turn Down Partisan Heat on Renewable Energy?


Liberal arts 'educated' at Reed College Jason Marks comments on heat rate.

From: “Jason Marks, PRC” Jason.Marks@state.nm.us
To: bpayne37@comcast.net, “David King, PRC” David.King@state.nm.us, “Jerome D Block, PRC” JeromeD.Block@state.nm.us>, Becenti@state.nm.us, “Sandy Jones, PRC” Sandy.Jones@state.nm.us
Cc: dave@radfreenm.org, nmusa@rt66.com, mhartranft@abqjournal.com, “Staci Matlock” smatlock@sfnewmexican.com>, amorales58@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:12:09 AM
Subject: Re: Large-scale solar generation of electricity fraud in New mexico?

Mr Payne:

I don’t understand your concerns. There are two basic solar electric technologies: photovoltaic panels (PV) and thermal concentrating solar power (CSP). The development and deployment in NM is focused on PV. Hundreds of homeowners with installed PV systems can tell you that their systems produce electricity in line with specifications, as proved by meters.

You (either an individual or a utility) buy a solar system for a certain price, you install it, and it generates electricity for 20 or 30 years or so, with minimal operating and maintenance costs. There are no fuel requirements (and thus no “heat rate”). When you spread the upfront costs over the system’s lifetime electric production and adjust for tax credits and REC incentives, you arrive at the cost per kwh. You get to decide if you think that cost per kwh is reasonable before you make the investment. There is no fraud.

Jason Marks


The blustery wind couldn't take away from the dazzle of the 50-acre renewable energy footprint composed of 78,000 solar panels at the ribbon-cutting ceremony Wednesday for the Los Lunas Solar Center.

"I want to see a real project that will add to New Mexico's renewable energy supply," Marks said. He added that PNM is in the process of developing new wind and solar energy power-generating stations.


Albuquerque Journal Business Insider 06/03/2011

PNM PRODDED ON ALT ENERGY - New Mexico regulators have unanimously rejected PNM Resources' request to use certificates it buys from other utilities to meet requirements that it produce 10 percent of its electricity in 2011 with renewable resources such as solar and wind energy. Public Regulation Commissioner Jason Marks said Friday PNM's plan to acquire certificates was legal and proper but that the PRC wants to prod utilities into making more electricity from renewable resources.


http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#abstract
Some PV manufacturers have expressed their willingness to take discarded modules and reprocess them at their expense. First Solar, for example, will take everything back and reprocess it, producing new panels. The only hitch is that they have to have been First Solar panels to begin with.


Thursday June 2, 2011 16:49

 
http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm#abstract











The contemplation of things as they are,
without error or confusion,
without substitution or imposture,
is in itself a nobler thing
than a whole harvest of invention.

Francis Bacon

Strategy required for sucessful intervention and commenting motion.

We have until June 24 so we take our time. In such matters always wait until the last minite.

You might think of something else!
Friday June 2, 2011 05:54

The liberal arts 'educated' with several exceptions hijacked the 2008 PNM electric IRP, IMO.
 
So let's try to help eliminate BS artist intervenors and commentors. Or at least expose their BS on Internet.
The Fastest Growing Industry Solar powers up



New Mexico Large-scale solar generation of electricity SCAM?

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/prccrd/schott/schott.htm 


Electricity Usage Monitor.

Ms Collawn never responded to Dave's and my proposal to predict the output of photovoltaic arrary from inexpensive Harbor Freight solar panels.

Dave MCoy of Citizen Action New Mexico.








Found NMAC 1.2.2.23A before Mr Martinez' email read.
1.2.2.23 INTERVENORS AND COMMENTERS:

A. Intervention: Any person other than staff and the original parties to a proceeding who desires to become a party to the proceeding may move in writing for leave to intervene in the proceeding.

(1) The motion for leave to intervene shall indicate the nature of the movant’s interest in the proceeding.

(2) The motion shall also comply with the provisions of this rule governing pleadings except that the motion shall indicate the facts relied upon as grounds for intervention.

(3) Motions for leave to intervene shall be served on all existing parties and other proposed intervenors of record.


We are going to file.

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrate/pnmrate.htm 

June 24 looks like first deadline.

3. Any person desiring to become a party to this case must file, via hand delivery or regular mail at the following address, an original and five (51 copies of a Motion for Leave to Intervene in conformity with 1.2.2.23.A NMAC on or before June 24, 2011:

New Mexico Public Regulation Commission
ATTN: Records Division
PERA Building
P0. Box 1269
1120 Paseo de Peralta
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1269

4. The Commission Staff and Intervenors may file any direct testimony on or before June 28, 2011.

Reason for motion
Beyond the fuels savings that result from energy efficiency, PNM states that its 2008 IRP showed that energy efficiency reduced the need for future generation plant additions and that the costs for capacity and energy that can be avoided through energy efficiency and demand management programs could result in a $390 Million net present value savings over the 20-year planning period.

Distortion by those who hijacked the 2008 IRP.

Look at foils in alternate report ... what PNM load forecaster Steve Martin was telling us. And was omitted from the incompetent 1 7/8 pound 'official' report.

Motion can be denied, perhaps by PRC lawyer Ashley C. Schannauer. But we have viz on our side.

We may have a complaint about Ms Shiela Shaffer not complying with a public records request?

John.Montoya@state.nm.us
PO Box 1269 Santa Fe NM 87504
1120 Paseo de Peralta Room 333 Santa Fe, NM 87504
505-827-4433


The government boosted electricity rates for non- residential users by an average 16.7 yuan ($2.58) per megawatt- hour, the official Xinhua News Agency said yesterday, citing the NDRC. Power prices for industrial users are currently 470 yuan a megawatt-hour on average, according to government data.

1 U.S. dollar = 6.47869804 Chinese yuan

or about $.155/yuan

New Mexicans pay a little over $.10/kWh.

.155 * 470 = 72.85.

Let's continue to check.

16.7 * .155 = 2.5885

Tuesday May 31, 2011 07:37

Hello Mr Zhu,

In China Raises Power Prices for Business, Farmers as Summer Shortage Looms I may be a bit confused on the price paid per kWh of electricity in China.

What are the prices paid per kWh for
1 residential
2 commercial
3 industrial
customers in China in USD and Yuan.

Thanks in advance.

bill

Whoops, maybe. It could be Ms Zhu [winnie]. :-)




Monday May 30, 2011 06:03

Let's file.

Our entry is the PNM electric IRP alternate report.

And!
Beyond the fuels savings that result from energy efficiency, PNM states that its 2008 IRP showed that energy efficiency reduced the need for future generation plant additions and that the costs for capacity and energy that can be avoided through energy efficiency and demand management programs could result in a $390 Million net present value savings over the 20-year planning period.

Relying on the 2008 incompetent [weight alone determination] IRP 'official' report is hopefully a fatal mistake?

IN THE MATTER OF THE RECONCILIATION
OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF
RIDER OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
NEW MEXICO

Reason for energy efficiency appears to be to support new construction on the west side at the expense of electric rate payers.

PNM load forecaster Steve Martin showed that increased number of customers is one problem. But Martin's foils were not included in 1 1/8 pound final 'official' report. Look at foils in alternate report.

Who is Ashley C. Schannauer? What are her credenitials to judge?

Twenty calendar days are up for PRC employee Sheila Shaffer on May 29, 2011.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/prccrd/shaffer/shaffer.htm#shaffer2

Twenty days may refer to 'working days' opposed to calendar days?



Tuesday September 2, 2008 09:10

Draft report weighed-in at 1 7/8 pounds! And did not, IMO, reflect what happened in the meetings.

So Alternate Report was required.



It's not bad writing. That's they way they think.

George Pettibone, circa 1958

Most vocal at the electric IRP meetings, all of about 18 of them were lawyer Steve Michel,
We're happy with it, or with most parts of it," said Steve Michel of Western Resource Advocates, an environmental policy group. ...

John Fleck of the Albuquerque Journal reported.

Craig O'Hare, and Tom Singer. They are included in the distribution list of the PPRC PBN Rate Hearings.

Listen to Tom Singer comment at last part of audio segment of 2011 natural gas IRP Wednesday May25, 2011

Reliability and longevity of energy-efficient gas and electric appliances was topic.

Engineer and statistician Cynthia Bothwell and PNM spokesperson Don Brown. Evlin Wheeler



was the leader of the electric Integrated Resources Planning.

Don Brown to right of Cindy Bothwell.



Saturday May 28, 2011 17:4

Received with May PNM bill.

 










BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE RECONCILIATION
OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF
RIDER OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
NEW MEXICO AND ADVICE NOTICE NOS. 416
(PNM) AND 44 (PNM-TNMP SERVICES) AND
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE )                                                Case No. 11-00123-UT

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO,

Applicant.

NOTICE OF PROCEEDING AND HEARING

Public Service Company of New Mexico ("PNM or Company"), as required by the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission ("NMPRC" or "Commission") is hereby giving notice to its customers that on April 1, 2011, PNM filed with the Commission Advice Notice No. 416 (PNM) and Advice Notice No. 44 (PNM-TNMP Services) under the Public Utility Act ("PUA"), the Efficient Use of Energy Act (" EUEA") and the NMPRC Energy Efficiency Rule, NMAC 1772 ("Rule"), for approvals and authorizations necessary to implement revisions to PNM's existing energy efficiency Program Cost Tariff Rate Riders No. 16 ("Rider 16") and PNM-Texas New Mexico Power Services Rate Rider No. 1 ("Rideri "), under which costs associated with energy efficiency and load management programs are recovered. The revisions in Advice Notices 416 and 44 reconcile two factors in Riders 16 and 1: the energy efficiency program cost factor is reconciled for energy efficiency tariff rider collections from 2010 and for energy efficiency program costs actually incurred, and the Adder factor is reconciled for actual energy and demand savings in 2010 as verified by the measurement and verification report prepared by the independent evaluator. The currently approved Program Rider charge under Rider No. 16 and No. 1 is 2.441% of each affected customer's bill, consisting of an energy efficiency program cost factor of 1.881 % and a 2010 Adder factor of 0.56%. The proposed combined Program Rider charge under Rider No. 16 and No. 1 is 2.839% of each affected customer's bill exclusive of gross receipts tax and franchise fees, consisting of an energy efficiency program cost factor of 2.243% and a 2010 Adder factor of 0.596%. The reconciled, incremental annual program cost is $2,562,426 and the reconciled, incremental Adder amount is $177,171.

On April 26, 2011, the Commission suspended the Advice Notices and designated a Hearing Examiner to resolve issues regarding the amounts PNM is entitled to recover for its prior year program costs, the manner in which the measurement and verification of savings for PNM's load management programs was conducted and other issues that the Hearing Examiner, Commission Staff or any other interested parties may raise with respect to PNM's filing. Currently, PNM Rider No. 16 applies to PNM Electric Services customers in the following rate classes: Residential Service lA & 1 B, Small Power Service 2A & 2B, General Power Service 3B & 3C, Large Power Service 4B, Large Power Service for Mining Customers SB, Water & Sewage Pumping 11 B, Large Power Service for Mining Customers 14B, Large Service for Public Universities 15B, Large Service for Manufacturing 17B, Special Contract Service for large Customers 23, and Large Service for Manufacturing - Distribution Level 30B; TNMP Rider No. 1 applies to PNM'sTNMP Services customers in the following rate classes: Residential Service 1, General Service 2, Large General Service 3, School Service 5 and Municipal Power Service 12, Municipal Power Service 13.

Under PNM's proposal, the following tariff rider charges will be paid in addition to the other charges that the customer is paying and will be collected through a line item charge on the customer's bill.

For PNM -TNMP Services residential customers on Rate Schedule No. 1 without demand meters, the present bill and the anticipated bill for each of the following levels of consumption are as follows:

The proposed rate changes stated by customer rate class are for informational purposes. The final rates as approved may vary.

Energy efficiency programs play an important role in PNM's resource portfolio and were the least cost resources in PNM's most recent Integrated Resource Plan I" IRP"). Beyond the fuels savings that result from energy efficiency, PNM states that its 2008 IRP showed that energy efficiency reduced the need for future generation plant additions and that the costs for capacity and energy that can be avoided through energy efficiency and demand management programs could result in a $390 Million net present value savings over the 20-year planning period.

1. Further information regarding this case may be obtained by contacting PNM or the Commission at the addresses and telephone numbers provided below. The Commission has assigned Case No. 11-00123-UT to this proceeding, and all inquiries or written comments concerning this matter should refer to that case number.

2. A settlement conference shall be held among the parties at 9:30 a.m. on May 26, 2011 in the Fifth Floor Conference Room, PERA Building, 1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, NM 87501.

3. Any person desiring to become a party to this case must file, via hand delivery or regular mail at the following address, an original and five (5 copies of a Motion for Leave to Intervene in conformity with 1.2.2.23.A NMAC on or before June 24, 2011:

New Mexico Public Regulation Commission
ATTN: Records Division
PERA Building
P0. Box 1269
1120 Paseo de Peralta
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1269

4. The Commission Staff and Intervenors may file any direct testimony on or before June 28, 2011.

5. Any rebuttal testimony must be filed on or before July 12, 2011.

6. A public hearing will be held beginning at 9:30 am. on July 20-22, 2011, at the Commission's offices, in the Ground Floor Hearing Room, 1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico, for the purpose of hearing and receiving evidence, arguments and any other appropriate matters in order to determine whether PNM's revised Riders No. 16 and No. 1 should be approved by the Commission. Any interested person should contact the Commission for confirmation of the hearing date, time and place since hearings are occasionally rescheduled. The hearing date and other information regarding this case will also be posted on the Commission's website lwww.nmorc.state.usl.

7 The procedural dates and requirements currently set in this case are subject to further Order of the Commission or the Hearing Examiner.

8. The Commission's Procedural Rules found at 1.2.2 NMAC shall apply to this proceeding except as modified by Order of the Commission or Hearing Examiner. A copy of such Rules may be obtained from the offices of the Commission.

9. Anyone filing pleadings, documents or testimony in this case shall serve a copy on all parties of record, Staff and the Hearing Examiner by e-mail or by first class mail, unless a party specifically requests service by first class mail. Copies served upon the Hearing Examiner shall include an electronic version of the filings in Word format. All filings shall be e-mailed on the date they are filed with the Commission.

10. Any interested person may examine PNM's filing in this case together with any exhibits and related papers which may be filed in this case at PNM's office, 414 Silver, SW, Albuquerque7New Mexico 87102, telephone: 1505) 241-2700, or at the Commission's offices, 1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501, (8881 427-5772.

11. Any interested person may appear at the time and place of hearing and make a written or oral comment pursuant to 1.2.2.23F NMAC without becoming an intervenor. Interested persons may also send written comments, which shall reference NMPRC Case No. 11-00123-UT, to the Commission at the address set out in Paragraph 5 above. However, comments governed by this paragraph will not be considered as evidence in this case.

12. Any person whose testimony has been pre-filed will attend the hearing and submit to examination under oath. Unless otherwise ordered or approved by the Commission or Hearing Examiner, the questioning of a party sponsoring a witness shall be limited on direct examination to the authentication and verification of the witness' pre-filed written testimony and later to appropriate redirect examination.

13. Any person with a disability requiring special assistance in order to participate in this proceeding should contact the Commission at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of the hearing.

ISSUED at Santa Fe, New Mexico, this May 6, 2011.

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

Ashley C. Schannauer


Friday May 27, 2011 09:03

Below arrived with PNM bill on Thursday May 26, 2011.



 
 


Large-scale solar generation of electricity may be a fraud. If so, then fun to get pics of some of the perps.

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmratehearing/pnmratehearing.htm#zelicoff
 

This page is formatted with CSS by the author