◆ Read more about the PRC and Constitutional Amendment 1 on

This November, we will vote on whether to transform the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission into an appendage of the Governor’s Office, or to keep it an elected body accountable to the people.

Giving the governor power to appoint PRC commissioners is listed on the ballot as Constitutional Amendment 1, and it’s a terrible idea.

Our democracy is already too concentrated in the hands of a small number of elected officials. Allowing the governor to select those charged with regulating our monopoly utilities would further narrow our already-fragile democratic system, removing an important check on power that should rest with the voting public.

In short, this amendment would give Public Service Company of New Mexico a clear path toward choosing its own regulators. The reason the amendment is even on the ballot is because PNM hasn’t been able to control the current PRC.

During the last PRC election, PNM spent a staggering $440,000 trying to elect two commissioner candidates they believed would be friendly to their interests. Direct contributions to PRC candidates are prohibited by law, so the money was filtered through a political action committee, New Mexicans for Progress. In both of those elections, we the people rejected PNM’s chosen candidates.

I believe this amendment would increase PNM’s influence over the process of selecting commissioners.

First, it takes away the voting public’s ability to directly unseat a PRC commissioner who acts against the public interest. Instead, the public would have to weigh the actions of the PRC alongside the many other activities of the state when voting for the governor and state legislators, who would in turn appoint the PRC. Since this issue is obviously a bit wonky, the decisions of the PRC would inevitably get lost in the shu±e. How convenient for PNM.

Second, the amendment, if passed, would make it easier for PNM to assert its influence on the PRC. PNM is prohibited from donating directly to candidates for the PRC, but there is no such prohibition on donations to the governor or state legislators. PNM has long shown its willingness to influence our political process with money, having spent over $556,000 on state and federal political campaigns in New Mexico over the past three years.

Before the PRC was created, New Mexico had an appointed Public Utility Commission. In a Jan. 6, 1994, Santa Fe New Mexican editorial, this body was called “a lapdog of our state’s power companies.” On Jan. 30, 1995, another editorial in the same paper explained that, “Because that commission is governor-appointed rather than elected, as in other states, its membership is subject to the political spoils system rather than merits as judged by voters.”

It’s just common sense that elected commissioners would be more pro-consumer than appointed commissions, since elected commissioners have to regularly answer to voters. But if you want proof, a 2003 study examined four decades of residential electricity prices across the country and concluded that “prices were significantly lower in states that elect their regulators.”

The amendment is PNM’s latest attempt to influence the selection of commissioners so it can control the PRC, raise rates on New Mexico families and continue to delay the conversion to renewables. Let’s keep our democracy direct and keep PNM in check. In this upcoming election, vote no on Constitutional Amendment 1.

Matthew Palevsky lives in Santa Fe, where he serves as a priest at Upaya Zen Center. He also serves as chairman of New Energy Economy, which defends New Mexicans against the excesses of the fossil fuel industry and advocates for bold solutions to our climate challenge.