High court throws out complaint
New Energy Economy had accused utility regulators of having conflict of interest
The state Supreme Court has denied a move by a Santa Fe-based clean energy advocacy group to prevent Public Regulation Commission Chairman Sandy Jones from ruling on Public Service Company of New Mexico’s proposed power plan over an alleged conflict of interest.
New Energy Economy initially had alleged both Jones, D-Williamsburg, and Commissioner Lynda Lovejoy, D-Crownpoint, could not be partial in hearing PNM’s “integrated resource plan” — a mix of coal, solar and other power sources to meet customer demand — because the utility’s parent company had donated $440,000 to a political action committee that campaigned for their re-election.
New Energy, which long has been a fierce opponent of PNM proposals, also said the two commissioners — both of whom lost their primaries despite help from the utility — had made “hostile” remarks toward the nonprofit’s executive director, Mariel Nanasi.
Jones and Lovejoy responded with identical statements saying PNM Resources and the PAC it gave to operated independently from the commissioners’ campaigns.
The PAC contributions, the commissioners argued, “do not give rise to even the appearance of impropriety and thus do not provide a basis for me to recuse myself from this case.”
Days later, however, Lovejoy recused herself from the PNM case, telling the Farmington Daily Times she didn’t have
the money for a court fight with New Energy.
Jones refused to back away from the case.
“For months, Ms. Nanasi has viciously smeared my character and credibility and I am pleased the state’s highest court has denied her futile attempt to keep me from overseeing this case,” Jones said in a news release. “Her litigious nature is doing irreparable harm to New Mexico.”
Nanasi on Tuesday repeated her contention that “PNM Resources’ huge campaign contribution has tainted the Commissioners and clearly meets the definition of an appearance of impropriety.”
Responding to Jones’ remarks, Nanasi said, “calling me ‘litigious,’ he is deflecting from the very important economic opportunities and environmental consequences of PRC’s energy decisions. … What Jones calls ‘litigious,’ we call representing the public interest.”
Chief Justice Judith Nakamura wrote the high court’s order denying New Energy’s petition, but did not state reasons for the rejection. The order says Justices Barbara Vigil, Petra Jimenez Maes and Gary Clingman concurred.
New Energy also is trying to remove Jones from hearing a case involving El Paso Electric’s plan to purchase a solar farm that would be built by Affordable Solar Installation of Albuquerque.
Affordable Solar and related companies and individuals gave Jones at least $13,000 in campaign contributions. The original petition included Lovejoy, who received at least $4,500 in campaign money from Affordable Solar.
The company made the contributions after Jones and Lovejoy voted to reject a PRC hearing examiner’s recommendation and allow PNM to purchase five solar farms built by Affordable Solar.
Following New Energy’s filing, Lovejoy recused herself from the El Paso Electric case as well.
New Energy has a history of taking conflict-of-interest cases to the Supreme Court.
In 2015, the group tried to disqualify four of the five Public Regulation Commission members from hearing PNM’s plan to shut down the San Juan Generating Station because of alleged improper communications with the utility during the case and public statements from some of the commissioners that New Energy claimed were evidence they already had made up their minds in favor of the utility.
After hearing oral arguments in that case, the court ruled against New Energy.
But Vigil seemed to admonish the commissioners when, immediately before announcing the decision, she quoted an opinion from a retired justice who had written, “Comments by a commissioner which constitute prejudgment may constitutionally taint any subsequent hearing so as to invalidate the ensuing order of the commission.”