PRC must decide on merger only after hearing the evidence

As a former commissioner on the Public Regulation Commission, I get asked about my opinion on a variety of issues before the PRC.

I am, however, puzzled at what occurred during last week’s meeting of the commission regarding the proposed merger of Avangrid and Public Service Company of New Mexico. It calls for people of good conscience to speak up.

First, recommendations made by the hearing examiner are nonbinding, and approvals, disapprovals or modifications are made strictly by the commissioners. I was shocked to see three members of our quasi-judicial commission state their opinions about the merger — on the record — in the middle of the process. This is akin to one party presenting its case and the jury expressing opinions before hearing the other side.

As New Mexicans, we know this violates all notions of due process and fairness. Secondly, the process involves months of testimony, with information and evidence gathering by parties in the case. The process involves public hearings where all sides hear and air arguments for or against the merger. Sadly, only a very small percentage of households actually follows this process or even have the knowledge of how rates are determined or how they’re applied.

Especially in this particular case, which has many ramifications for the future of our state. The different headlines do not help with where the merger stands. On Nov. 2, there was “PNM-Avangrid merger gets a no.” Then, Dec. 1., “PNM/Avangrid merger under heavy fire at PRC,” and then the icing, three of five elected members state publicly they oppose the merger.

Thus, these members showed their cards before allowing due process to take place. During my tenure on the PRC,

I saw unopened boxes of information relevant to a cases sitting outside a commission office for days. There are some commissioners, however, who take their oath of office seriously to serve and represent the people.

I applaud the two commissioners who are giving the process the full opportunity to bring forth a legitimate outcome. The commission does have an obligation and opportunity to do what is right — listen and weigh evidence before making a decision. I do trust in fair treatment through the normal quasi-judicial system, and I trust our elected commissioners will return to the proper procedure.

Finally, as a paying utility customer, I expect to hear “both sides” and all facts of the actual impacts of this merger to ratepayers and their families.