MINUTES OF THE REGULAR OPEN MEETING

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION June 21, 2011

TIME: 9:30 a. m.

A quorum was present as follows:

Members Present: Commission Chairman Patrick H. Lyons Commission Vice-Chairman Jerome D. Block Commissioner Jason A. Marks Commissioner Theresa Biecenti-Aguilar Commissioner Ben L. Hall

Members Excused:

Staff Present Johnny Montoya, Chief of Staff Robert Hirasuna, General Counsel Anthony Medeiros, Hearing Examiner Carolyn Glick, Hearing Examiner Marc Martinez, Office of General Counsel Carol Rising, Legal Division Director Roy Stephenson, Utility Division Director Reggie Padilla, Utility Division Steve Schwebke, Utility Division Larry Lujan, Transportation Division Director Gerald Gamer, PIO

Others Pl'8Sent Carl Boaz, Stenographer

CALL TO ORDER

PLACE: PERA Building 4th Floor Hearing Room 1120 Paseo de Peralta Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

The Regular Open Meeting was scheduled at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to proper notice under NMSA 1978, 10-15-1(C}, and the Commission's Open Meeting Policy. Commission Chairman Patrick Lyons called the Regular Open meeting to ordE?r at 9:30 a.m., in the Fourth Floor Hearing Room, PERA Building, 1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

A copy of the sign-in sheet for the Regular Open Meeting is incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit 1.

A copy of the Agenda for the Regular Open meeting is incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit 2.

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC:E

2. INTRODUCTIONS

There were no introductions.

3. MISCELLANEOUS ANNOUNCEMENTS

Commissioner Block announced that he and Commissioner Marks attended a public meeting regarding Kit Carson in Taos. There was a good attendance and they both spoke there.

Commissioner Becenti-A~1uilar attended a Navajo Tribal Council meeting near Shiprock. She addressed the issues of tax exemption and wireless protection.

Commissioner Block askeid Mr. Montoya to follow the redistricting meetings across the street. The Commission should be participating in them.

Chairman Lyons agreed and would be involved. Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar agreed.

Chairman Lyons mentiorn~ to Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar that he would like to attend one of the Navajo Council meetings.

4. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Commissioner Block moved to approve the agenda as prasented. Conmssioner Becen6-Aguilar seconded the motion and it paned by unanimous voice vote.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public.

6. REGULAR ACTION ITE~IS

Minutes of the Regular Fonnal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page2

A. Utility Division

10-00280-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO FOR APPROVAL OF 2010 ELECTRIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND REVISIONS TO PROGRAM COST TARIFF RIDERS PURSUANT TO THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC UTILITY AND EFFICIENT USE OF ENERGY ACTS. (Robart Hirasuna) Order

Mr. Hirasuna presented information regarding this matter to the Commission. During the discussion at the last meeting the Commission asked for a revision and he did revise the draft final order to provide that the landlord's share for the renters' program should be increased from 5% to 10% both before and after ARRA funds would expire and direct that the budget be reduced about 50% from $942,000 to about $471,000.

In the Commercial Comprehensive Program, it was first approved in0B-00204 and the approved budget in the RD was $5.3 million or an increase over the original $3.4 million. The TRC was 1. 49 but in the 2010 M & V report, ADM showed a TRC of 2.13. The program was directed mostly to commercial and industrial customers wherein they applied for rebates for prescriptive and non-prescriptive measures to improve energy efficiency.

No party objected to this program so the RD didn't discuss it at all except as displayed in the budget. The TRC was confirmed by ADM for 2010.

Chairman Lyons asked how it worked.

Mr. Hirasuna said there was a set schedule of rebates as shown on PNM's website where the details were explained. The program was for both new and older commercial buildings.

In the 11-00123 case the Commission noted that PNM had not done an M & V on the Peak Saver and didn't explain how they arrived at the TRC. In response, PNM filed a revised M & V report.

Commissioner Marks said the concern was what they spent the money on and how effective it was. The Commission's concern was that was vague.

Mr. Hirasuna agreed it was not clear how they actually spent it.

Ms. Rebecca Dempsey (for PNM) said it was just filed last Monday and she was not familiar with the contents.

Mr. Primm asked if the Commission issued an order to determine a percentage.

Commissioner Marks said he wanted to know what was typical in the market.

Chairman Lyons said the Commission asked for it last Thursday. He asked what it would take to keep

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page 3

the rates where they were.

Commissioner Block wondered if it would be best to table this to the end of the meeting

Commissioner Marks look.ed through the order and was interested in the commercial. He also wanted some small changes in it.

Chairman Lyons noted they tabled it on Thursday so he guessed they should just delete the whole program until they got more information. It looked like a hidden agenda.

Commissioner Marks referred to page 3 of the order, paragraph 6 and agreed with Mr. Hirasuna that the Commission should follow the RD on this one but proposed to put some more positive language here. The HER programs, if longevity was resolved, were good programs. They provided potential savings for everyone and actual savings for some. In the 2nd sentence he wanted it to say the HER type programs have positive aspects and the Commission would encourage PNM to resubmit the program but puts PNM on notice that if it did so, it should use an RFP process to select the contractors and not do a sole source.

Chairman Lyons liked that.

Commissioner Marks had a substantive issue on the energy smart for renters program. Staff in this case raised the question if PNM should be able to claim the full amount of the savings or just 20%. Staff said 20% - on the bonus payments.

Here they had a federal siubsidy carrying 80% of the weight and the PNM and landlords combined would pick up 20% and questioned if PNM should get 100% bonus payments. That was not right. The Commission would be giving PNM credit for a program driven by 80% federal funds and policy so they should only count 20% toward incentive/disincentive programs. It was not like the other ones. The rest was paid by PNM and/or customers.

Commissioner Hall agreed they wanted to claim the whole $5,100. He agreed with allowing 20%.

Mr. Hirasuna asked if he meant just 20% of the adder and Commissioner Marks agreed.

Commissioner Marks felt there was a value to the landlord and a direct benefit for tenants in the first few years. The landlord wouldl have fewer vacancies and would keep tenants longer and could charge more rent for having an energy-efficient apartment. Ultimately there were some market based benefits here. So it was justified to have landlords contribute 10%.

On page 9, paragraph 16 on Energy Star homes, the exception from CCAEIWRA was asking PNM to work with them for replacement of this program when it would go away. The Commission should adopt that exception in paragraph 18 requiring PNM to consult with stakeholders and either propose a replacement for the energy star home program or explain why that was not possible. This was one of the programs that had been most successful. And they should require PNM to consult in their next plan or explain why replacement was not possible.

Minutes of the Regular Fonnal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page4

Commissioner Hall thought that was good. The PRC should encourage CID to include that requirement in the building code. Right now CID decided not to do it so the Commission should include that.

Commissioner Marks asked him then join in his letter to CID. Commissioner Hall agreed.

Chairman Lyons thought in this comprehensive commercial program there might be only company like Intel who could do it. We didn''t know who.

Commissioner Hall wanted to know who had benefitted from it. Mr. Primm might have that information.

Chairman Lyons wanted to keep the rider at 2.4% rather than 3% and decrease the load management and commercial comprehensive if possible to make no increase to the ratepayer.

Commissioner Hall said they increased commercial from $3 million to 5 million and decreased the number of participants from 482 to 225. He questioned how that could be justified.

Mr. Hirasuna proposed hH could on with the rest of the presentation and come back with the responses.

Mr. Primm thought perhaps it would be best to communicate to OGC during a brief break in order to present it to the Commission.

Mr. Hlrasuna asked him to go ahead and report.

Mr. Primm said within the amended report by PNM, they filed an amended M& V report, the primary purpose was to address the missing load management program. The rest was unchanged.

Within that report the commercial comprehensive report was addressed. Specifically to the questions the Commission asked but he, was not sure the Commissioners had copies of this report. It was filed under the 11-00123 docket.

Ms. Rebecca Dempsey said PNM didn't file it in either docket. It was a compliance filing.

Mr. Primm concluded thalt they existed in a-docket but not entered into open dockets. In Section 2.8 it listed the measures that were available in the commercial comprehensive program.

Another issue he heard was what the share of particular measures that would be installed was. The format might not be what exactly what the Commission asked for but in 7.1 there was a commercial comprehensive market evaluation to show whether there was market for this and if it had been saturated. It was broken down by counties. The tables that seemed most appropriate were tables 7-5 and 7-6 but more on 7-7 that dealt with retrofit. Largely lighting was the most exercised measures by participants followed by HVAC and the report was broken down by percent participation by customer types. {listed). That was in 7-7 for the breakdown.

Under the quick saver program, there were breakdowns by lighting and refrigeration that could be

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page5

exercised by customers.

Another issue he heard was what types of customers had availed themselves of these reports. The aspects of M&V reports were normally kind of confidential to protect customers. There was a survey in 5.8 that reviewed their process and sampling methods used in the realization rates and rider rates to determine the ultimate savings customers were motivated to do. Table 5-3 included some customers by type and by city.

There might be something proprietary about the business to help with what type equipment they used. PNM knew that through site visits but the common practice was to keep reporting to a non-specific and somewhat confidential level. There was a breakdown in 5.8 about how they were surveyed and how their behavior (motivation) responded to the incentives offered by the utility.

Chairman Lyons asked about the shared percentage with manufacturer in the landlord program at 10%.

Mr. Primm asked if he meant what percentage of cost was born by ratepayer and what part born by company. Chairman Lyons agreed.

Mr. Primm was not sure that existed in this report but they could arrive at it by simply getting the number from PNM on amount spent on incentives and they calculated the number the company paid for the retrofit and analyze it.

Chairman Lyons asked if no one knew the percentage when it was previously approved by the Commission.

Mr. Primm said no because it depended on who availed themselves of which programs. In some instances the incentive has to be larger for retrofit because it was a longer payback period. Lighting was not as much because it was faster payback. He could get the aggregate data for the program to say in general what percent was paid by the incentive.

Commissioner Marks said it wasn't that the Commission gave a blank check. There was a table that had each program what participant costs were in the budget to know how much would be participant money. Mr. Primm agreed.

Commissioner Marks said that meant they could find that information but in this filing there should be some ratios. He asked if there was a TRC filing showing that.

Mr. Hirasuna didn't think so.

Mr. Primm said it would include other facets than what Chairman Lyons asked for. All of that information should be producible.

Chairman Lyons asked why they were increasing so much - 7-6 and 7-9 showed only 40 businesses used it, excluding schools. He asked if there was only one business. This was the biggest program and the

Minutes of the Regular Fonnal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page6

Commission knew nothing about it.

Chainnan Lyons asked how many old businesses and how many new businesses there were. They shouldn't be increasing it with $5 million until they knew the load.

Mr. Primm said the breakdown of new and retrofit didn't refer to business status but only if a similar mechanism was being replaced or a business was adding on a new facility or new motors for an additional work station. That would be a new application under this tenninology. He didn't have a way to track if they were new customer sites or old ones but thought PNM could find that out.

Chainnan Lyons thought it should be easy to find out. There were not many businesses expanding now.

Mr. Primm said this program was designed to stimulate business expansion in these economic times.

Commissioner Hall asked what percentage of the $5 million the rate payers would pay.

Mr. Primm said it was the entire amount.

Commissioner Hall understood it was all on the ratepayers and the company paid for none of it.

Mr. Primm said any company choosing this program must pay for the rider themselves. It was only the low-income weatherization where they didn't have to come up with the lion's share. Commercial has to come up with their own capital for 66%0 of it.

Commissioner Hall's concern was that ratepayers wind up paying for the programs. Last year the participation was 482 and this year 226 with increased costs. He didn't understand why.

Mr. Primm said that in eaGh it was what the company felt the M&V cost would be.

Regarding the question on participation, the program was deemed to have a total resource cost of 2 which means the benefits outweigh costs by 2:1. There might be others not participating in the comprehensive but the benefit to whole system was deemed to benefit twice the cost.

Commissioner Hall asked how they could prove that ratepayers were going to double their money.

Mr. Primm admitted that any kind of accounting was open to gamesmanship or modification. That was why it was important to bring in auditors. Prior commissions have chosen to employ an auditor to check on those measurements. It was an independent evaluator to make sure the finances were reasonable. Avoided costs were not part of this but were also subject to review by parties in cases and by staff and found to be reasonable.

Mr. Hirasuna thought July might be a good to time to ask ADM to make a presentation on how ADM did this M & V.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page 7

Commissioner Hall asked if ADM followed PNM down the road to verify this. He wondered what they did for the $1.1 million.

Chairman Lyons reminded him they were not considering their contract at this time.

Commissioner Hall understood but it was relevant because their $1.1 million was part of this $5 million.

Mr. Primm said he could address the process or as Mr. Hirasuna suggested, wait for more detailed information, ADM or other experts could be brought in to report. Section 5.8 indicated the process they went through for evaluation. After the company contacted PNM to participate in the program, the changes were reported and after the fact, ADM would come to the customer to see what was installed to verify what was changed and ask questions about whether the customer would have made these changes without the incentive. ADM would excludie what they would have done anyway and PNM would only get credit for the rest.

They would make adjustments appropriately based on the customer's behavior and it might change some assumptions and make the appropriate adjustments.

Mr. Martinez corrected an earlier statement. Of the $5.2 million, the actual TRC was 1.49 according to PNM so the savings was$ 7.!5 million.

Commissioner Marks said the Commission could not cut the commercial program entirely. The Commission was taking $1.2 million out of residential programs. A proportional reduction in commercial would be about $935,000. Th1~y couldn't cut commercial because it was not challenged. The other reason was that the tariff was 3% and everyone paid that so it wouldn't be fair to make commercial pay the 3% tariff with no program in which they could participate.

Commissioner Hall asked if that was from the new budget or the old one.

Commissioner Marks said it was out of the $5.2 million.

Chairman Lyons asked about cutting that amount including ADM's share out of the budget. That would be at least $600,000 of it.

Mr. Hirasuna reminded them that ADM's cost was spread over all the programs.

Mr. Primm said it was $1.1 million across all four utilities so PNM's share was $500,000.

Mr. Hirasuna said PNM showed $205,000 for the commercial.

Commissioner Hall didn't see the increase in commercial.

Chairman Lyons asked if there was a demand for it. He asked if more people wanted to participate.

Mr. Primm said currently there were no aspects that would cap individual customers from participating

Minutes of the Regular Fonnal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page a

Commissioner Hall understood but was going off the numbers they proposed.

Mr. Primm clarified that w!hat was driving that increase was the statutory mandate on PNM's savings goals for 2014 on a base line of 2005. The utilities wanted to reach those goals but hadn't yet. So they want to ramp up those programs they knew worked and had not saturated the market. PNM believed this was a successful program and needed to help reach those goals. The numbers of customers was not important but the amount of savings was.

The market study included in the M&V report seemed to back up that assumption by PNM. ADM's finding was that it was not saturating the market in that program.

Commissioner Hall argued about the numbers further.

Mr. Stephenson added that not all participants were the same size. The math was there but not as obviously.

Mr. Primm said to have as broad a participation as possible would indicate caps on each program but that was a policy decision to clrive program design rather than raising the budget issue as reasonable or not.

Commissioner Hall said the Commission could not make assumptions but had to go on the numbers provided. Asking if the benefits would outweigh the costs was the appropriate question to ask.

Mr. Hirasuna calculated that the entire program would need to be about $5 million to keep the 2.441 rate.

Mr. Martinez said he calculated what it would cost to build an 81 MW plant which was based on PNM's filing in 2008 when they filed the plan. Taking 81MW and using the cost estimate of PNM in the integrated cost estimate of $963 per KW would be an initial investment of about $78 million. Applying PNM's weighted cost of capital pre-tax would yield about $9.4 million annual cost and depreciation of $2.6 million and O&M would yield $12.3 million annual cost for that asset.

Mr. Hirasuna noted that wouldn't include fuel costs. PNM filed testimony in case 11-00123 that two new 40MW gas turbine generators would be $112 million over 7 years and the remaining load management contracts would cost $44 million. In the same testimony they said that without load management they would fall below the threshold reserve margins and would have to build a new facility.

Commissioner Marks concluded that Mr. Martinez was saying that $7.9 million in load management buys the same capacity as building a plant for $12.3 million so it was one third cheaper to do load management. Mr. Martinez a!1reed.

Mr. Martinez clarified that it would be $78 million amortized over 30 years.

Commissioner Hall pointeid out that it had increased by $1 million per year in the last 3 years so 12

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page9

years down the road it would be paid for. Even if it stayed at $7.9 million he questioned how much more life would be in the plant they could collect on.

Mr. Hirasuna said there was a cap on the increase and were just about at the maximum.

Chairman Lyons said it would be for 23 years more.

Mr. Hirasuna said they took the NPV for seven years which included all the increases in costs. Throwing that together and assuming that was true, for the next seven years rate payers were better off by $80-90 million. So if they held off in building a new plant for three or four years would save the ratepayers.

Chairman Lyons agreed but the facility would cost more in four years also.

Commissioner Hall asked how much they would be taking in. They were paying out $12.3 million but he wondered how much were theiy bringing in.

Commissioner Marks said it was $12.3 million. If they built that plant, the rates would go up $12.3 million to pay for it.

Commissioner Hall added that they would already be charging $8 million for load management.

Mr. Hirasuna said there would be $4 million in savings per year. The cost of new plant would have to be a significant increase for that to make sense.

Mr. Martinez agreed and added that there were also economies of scale. He explained how it worked.

Chairman Lyons pointed out that with load management there would be no asset after 8 years but would if they were building a facility and that could be used for years into the future.

Ms. Rebecca Dempsey (PNM) said this information was not in the record in this case and parties had no opportunity to get into these issues. The LRP was being addressed in an integrated resource plan. She hadn't been involved in that but the facility vs. load management was being addressed.

Commissioner Hall thought rate payers would rather pay for a plant instead of a policy.

Chairman Lyons asked if it was cheaper to buy the energy.

Ms. Dempsey said it was in PNM's 11-00123 case and it would be addressed there. Purchasing capacity was not an option be1cause the capacity was not available. The transmission was not available.

Commissioner Marks asked if PNM filed something that more capacity was needed.

Ms. Dempsey said no. PNM filed testimony on relative costs for facility vs. load management. A PPA would have to be done but trainsmission was a barrier. That was in supplemental testimony of 123.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page 10

Commissioner Hall noted that sometimes those agreements go away and they needed something in emergencies.

Commissioner Marks disagreed. They needed the lowest cost solutions. They were talking about a plant that might only burn 12 hours per year. PNM had Afton which at one time was only operating 5% of the time. It was used more now but wasn't then.

He didn't understand why ratepayers should have to pay $12.8 million in debt management instead of $8 million for load management and could not see having a facility out there not being used.

Commissioner Hall said they would have an asset out there. And if they had excess electricity they could sell the power to other states who needed it like California.

Ms. Dempsey indicated there were many variables and off -system sales could be one of them. But all of it would be looked at by PNM.

Chainnan Lyons thought PNM already did load management anyway.

Mr. Hirasuna said the utilities' traditional responses were to generate to match loads as demanded but not in control of demand. It always had been on the generation side. So they were trying to man81Je demand now and that was different. Look at it just like a peaking unit. They would curtail demand and free up capacity.

Chainnan Lyons pointed out it was $8.2 million vs. $14 million. The biggest increase was load management at $3.1 million and commercial at $1.8 million. He asked what the Commission wanted to do with load mancl(Jement. Load management was $6.8 million in 2010 and $4.8 million in 2008. He would like to keep it at the 2010 estimat1~.

Mr. Hirasuna said there might be a contract penalty.

Commissioner Marks agr1eed. They said there was.

Chainnan Lyons asked if the Commission couldn't make a decision here.

Mr. Hirasuna said the Commission could decide.

Commissioner Hall thought that penalty was for early tennination, not for cutting it back.

Mr. Hirasuna said the PRC knew about the penalty in 2007. There was a penalty if the program was tenninated or suspended but he didn't know about cutting it back.

Chainnan Lyons concludt3d that all the Commission could do then was to let the PNM contract expire.

Mr. Hirasuna said right now the contract would go through 2017.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page 11

Chairman Lyons said the Commission should just keep the costs at the 2007 level.

Commissioner Marks explained that the way the contract was written, there was a maximum amount the vendor could go to as a maximum and they were growing toward it. PNM signed that contract and the Commission might not have n3alized how big it was.

Mr. Hirasuna added that this was proposed when PNM needed additional generation.

Chairman Lyons said they shouldn't have built Lordsburg then.

Commissioner Marks agn3ed that in retrospect it wasn't a great contract. And a year ago he asked if these vendors wanted to keep a relationship with PNM. The vendors came in and said now, we want the additional revenues. That should be considered next time we do load management. So if they froze the amount, there were penalties. At some point they cap out.

Mr. Primm recollected it was within one or two years of capping out. One of them had capped out. They were coordinated on level of service but he would have to review them again.

Chairman Lyons asked what the least was that they could do on load management.

Mr. Hirasuna didn't know and would have to go back and look at it.

Chairman Lyons pointed out that even with economy going down, their contract still goes up.

Mr. Hirasuna said demand has gone up. He could look at it or the Commission could issue a bench request for that.

The Commission discusS43d that further.

Commissioner Becenti-A~Juilar asked that the next time the Commission was brought such a contract, it needed to have a process where the parties have communicated and staff do a thorough review and have auditors tell the Commission what was there.

Mr. Hirasuna agreed to take a further look and bring it back on Thursday or next Tuesday.

Chairman Lyons asked if they could get it done this month. Mr. Hirasuna agreed.

Mr. Hirasuna said one way to reduce rate impact would be to reduce adders. The Commission could reverse the HE's RD on 2010 interim adder. Recovering all of them over 18 months would take it down to 3.1443%.

Chairman Lyons agreed to run that through.

Commissioner Marks ask1ed that it be reduced down to about 2.9%. He also asked Mr. Hirasuna to put in that PNM would be required to make a compliance filing for recomputing the adder.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page 12

Mr. Hirasuna said that was in the RD now.

Commissioner Marks understood. They would need to compute the rider percentage in 10-00086 after the Commission approved the· order. Mr. Hirasuna agreed.

Commissioner Marks saidl if they allowed rates to go up in 10-00086 then the riders would have to go down proportionately. Mr. Hirasuna understood.

Mr. Hirasuna agreed to bring it back next Thursday.

Commissioner Marks notE~ Mr. Hirasuna had some findings about the load management here on paragraph 35 on page 18. He asked Mr. Hirasuna to put in paragraph 35 something about the definition -the load management program needs to able to offset the need a more expensive supply side resource. Mr. Hirasuna agreed.

7. DISCUSSION ITEMS

A. Utllly Division

10-00301-UT IN TliE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF EL PASO ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO CONSTRUCT A UTILITY GENERATING PLAN AT THE RIO GRANDE POWER STATION. (Anthony Medeiros) Certifi:ation d Stipjation

Mr. Medeiros said EPE filed an application for approval of a CCN to construct the AERO facility - it was a peaking unit to reach growth and efficiency. This was pursuant to company's IRP process and anticipated need.

Commissioner Marks ask,ed if they couldn't do load management.

Mr. Medeiros said it was discussed in testimony before the stipulation was filed. They went through the RFP process. Capacity would be 87 MW at 25% capacity and it would cost $84 million which translated to $964/KW. The analysis was n~quired when it was approved by Texas Commission and that was 67 cents or 1.1 % increase in rates.

Commissioner Marks thought that was for all the efficiency programs.

Mr. Medeiros thought they had a load management program but didn't know the amount.

Ms. Goodwin said EPE didn't have a load management program like PNM had but did have energy efficiency programs that provided load management benefits. They received bids as part of the RFP. Those bids were not sufficient amounts. There has been a delay in the last few years because of lower demand

Minutes of the Regular Fonnal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page 13

but only until 2013.

Mr. Medeiros said the infonnation about the bids was in testimony and also in the certification of stipulation on page 13 that cit13d the testimony. They used an independent evaluator.

Commissioner Marks said he would take a look at Mr. Acosta's testimony. It wasn't just load management but also looked at contracting with someone else to do it.

Mr. Medeiros agreed. One bid was actually a retrofit. He addressed the issue with Mr. Costa at the May 18th hearing.

The only intervener was WRA. They did not participate at the hearing but indicated that WRA did not oppose the stipulation. Because they did not request recusal from the hearing, his certificate was to strike their intervention.

Chainnan Lyons thanked him and asked him to bring it back.

11-00089-UT IN TliE MATTER OF INDIAN HILLS WATERWORKS' ADVICE NOTICE NO. 5. (Can:>lyn R. Glick) Recommended Decision

Ms. Glick reported there were sufficient protests for holding a hearing.

Commissioner Marks understood it could come back for action.

Ms. Caffey-Moquin agreed and they would bring it right away.

8. COMMUNICATIONS WITH GENERAL COUNSEL, ROBERT HIRASUNA

There were no communications with General Counsel.

9. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHIEF OF STAFF, JOHNNY MONTOYA

Mr. Montoya said Mr. Lovato and Mr. Kumar put together the copier consolidation with further information. He handed out a report. That would save about $160,000 as shown on page 2. They had three companies submit bids.

Commissioner Marks wanted to see the list of what they were getting rid of.

Mr. Lovato agreed to provide the list.

Mr. Montoya said next Thursday was the all employees picnic and he would get all staff together at 11 :30 on that day for an information meeting.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page 14

Chainnan Lyons said he was bringing the grill with lots of meat.

10. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSIONERS

Commissioner Marks said they had a constituent complaint about Progressive Insurance. He thought it was still going on. The complainant had asked CRD for statistics on how many complaints were filed against Progressive and how it compared with other companies. CRD wrote him back on how to obtain that information under IPRA and he was a little frustrated by that.

Ms. Duran talked to staff to ask if the PRC had that infonnation. At one time we had a list for complaints against telephone companies. But he was hearing the PRC didn't have those statistics on insurance companies and thought the CRD ought to know that infonnation so Mr. Williamson could make use of such infonnation when things didn't look good. He asked why they didn't have it now and whether they did have it at one time.

Mr. Williamson said it was in the Ideal data on the insurance side. CRD would want to know that.

Commissioner Marks said they spent lots of money on IQ for complaints and asked if they had it.

Mr. Williamson said they did have it.

Mr. Montoya thought they could run the infonnation by companies.

Commissioner Marks askIed if he could push a button for it. Mr. Montoya agreed.

Commissioner Marks ask1ed Mr. Williamson to do that.

Commissioner Becenti-AfJUilar agreed and said that CRD needed to be involved and she usually talked with Mr. Williamson about each case and he provided it

11. ADJOURNMENT

Corrmissioner Hall moYed to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar seconded the motion and it passed by unaninous (,4-0) voice vote. Comnissioner Block was not present for the vote.

The meeting was adjoum13d at 11 :55 a.m.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page 15

Minutes of the Regular Fonnal Open Meeting June 21, 2011 Page 16

NEW l\lEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

OPEN MEETING

SIGN-IN SHEET

DATE: ni/J I;::,, h 011 I f

Name Company Name (if any) Phone Number

":-:-P"'""-~ - ~--. 7'l C:.:::-"""i: \.... '. w, -A- \_)--) s.:::.-::>- ?. '= 'f - 3,1_ -s l ko ~,;/IL /}:'.; - - A, .,ve--.., .--h ~Y-- h<t..-L-~ 9 g-? '1¥-J ~ '

~Q.,,.1 h S~wc;,_ / / J sos V <r blo ,.·+ :+ 4 6 /:.J ~ fl ?J I (L 0 \ (,? 04{ < 'rf~ / 0 \f I,. L\_ \ M (!I(' A(l

I J\ /'Ai (I,, ll\, "\" l : (1~ \i1 - '[) ::>t ~ '-6trtl, .. - c1-)(c..

I

Thank you for attending this meeting.

Gr'JJ-7 t'lt4-t o ··lt 14 /,,, 2'41 7'11t::..l

CJ ~2=- • 4 (c( I

EXHIBIT 1 PRC 06/21/11

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

REGULAR OPEN MEETING Tuesday, June 21, 2011

9:30 A.M. PERA Building, 4th Floor Hearing Room

1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, NM 87501

AGENDA

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. INTRODUCTIONS

3. MISCELLANEOUS ANNOUNCEMENTS

4. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

6. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS

A. Utility Division 10-00280-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE Robert Hirasuna COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO FOR APPROVAL OF 2010

ELECTRIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND REVISIONS TO PROGRAM COST TARIFF RIDERS PURSUANT TO THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC UTILITY AND EFFICIENT USE OF ENERGY ACTS.

Order

Regular Open Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 21, 2011 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT2 PRC 06/21/11

7. DISCUSSION ITEMS

A. Utility Divisio1n 10-00301-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF EL PASO ELECTRIC Anthony Medeiros COMPANY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE

AND NECESSITY TO CONSTRUCT A UTILITY GENERATING PLANT AT THE RIO GRANDE POWER STATION.

Certification of StiQulaiton

11-00089-UT IN THE MATTER OF INDIAN HILLS WATERWORKS' ADVICE Carolyn R. Glick NOTICE NO. 5.

Recommended Decision

8. COMMUNICATIONS WITH GENERAL COUNSEL, ROBERT HIRASUNA

9. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHIEF OF STAFF, JOHNNY MONTOYA

10. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSIONERS

11. ADJOURNMENT

The Commission will ma~:e reasonable efforts to post the agenda on the Commission's website 24 hours before the open meeting but the inability to do so within the 24 hours prior will not require the Commission to delay the meeting or to refrain from taking action on any agenda itE~m on which it otherwise could act.

At any time during the C>pen Meeting the Commission may close the meeting to the public to discuss matters not subject to the New Mexico Open Meetings Act. The Commission may revise the order of the agenda items considered at this Open Meeting.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING SPECIAL ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PR()CEEDING SHOULD CONTACT THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICl:S OF THE COMMISSION (827-4084) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE OPEN MEETING.

Regular Open Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 21, 2011 Page 2 of 2