PNM bill resurrected in Legislature
Proposal, dubbed a bailout, was among most contentious in 2018 session
State legislators are poised to revive at least part of a sprawling bill that, among other things, would have helped New Mexico’s biggest electric utility recoup some of its costs from closing a coal power plant in the Four Corners and provided economic development funds for the surrounding community.
Pushed by the Public Service Company of New Mexico, the bill became one of the most contentious pieces of legislation during the last session, with critics arguing it would have amounted to a bailout of the company’s investment in coal energy. Meanwhile, lawmakers from the Four Corners contended that the state had to do something to brace the area for the shutdown of the San Juan Generating Station and the coal mine that feeds it.
Ultimately, the bill died in a packed Senate committee hearing.
But several lawmakers said during a Tuesday meeting of the Economic and Rural Development Committee that they are in talks with the company’s representatives and some legislative
leaders about the bill — or, at least, pieces of it.
“Discussions have been continuing,” said House Republican Whip Rod Montoya, from Farmington, describing the issue as “the most important thing to our constituents in San Juan County.”
State Sen. Jacob Candelaria, a Democrat from Albuquerque who co-sponsored this year’s bill, said he is also in talks about the issue.
“At the very least, we need to have more discussion and keep the momentum going,” he said, urging lawmakers to revisit the matter as committees meet in coming months.
Unclear is exactly what shape a deal might take and whether it can keep together an unlikely coalition of conservationists and business interests that may be necessary to pass a bill.
To be sure, PNM, as the power company is known, spends big on state politics (it just pumped $440,000 into a political action committee to influence races for the commission that regulates it).
And environmental groups including Conservation Voters New Mexico are at the table, interested in some sort of agreement that can close the coal plant and transition to renewable energy.
The tough part will be the details.
Conservation groups, for example, have generally chafed at the prospect of ensuring that PNM operates replacement sources of energy and want to guarantee that any deal does not curtail the role of the Public Regulation Commission, which regulates the company.
The bill would have allowed PNM to sell bonds to recoup some of the costs of closing the power plant — a process known as securitization. The bonds would have been paid off by customers over time.
The bill also provided economic development funds for San Juan County and would have required PNM to get at least half its power from renewable sources by 2030, a higher share than currently required.
Critics argued, though, that the measure was an end run around the state’s utility regulator and would have left customers with higher bills.
Lawmakers, meanwhile, maintained that any legislation must be shaped in the open after contending that the last bill — initially 41 pages — didn’t get enough public scrutiny before it was introduced ahead of this year’s session.
“We got bits and pieces through talking in the hall as opposed to having a chance to really look at something,” said state Rep. Patty Lundstrom, D-Gallup.
Proponents acknowledged Tuesday that the 2018 bill may have been too big, suggesting that any deal might be scaled back or at least rolled out in different pieces of legislation.
Montoya said renewable energy standards that were discussed as part of this year’s bill might be introduced separately next year.
“One of the big failings of the legislation that was pushed last year was that it really did not proportionally consider the loss of jobs. It was really a property tax, securitization and environmental protection bill,” he said. “And really the folks who are losing jobs, the folks who are going to be looking for work or leaving the community — it did not address enough their concerns.”