PNM Resources : Reply Brief

Filed

Supreme Court of New Mexico

6/17/2022 2:01 PM

Office of the Clerk

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

NO. S-1-SC-39138

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO,

Appellant,

v.

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION,

Appellee,

and

SIERRA CLUB, NEW ENERGY ECONOMY,

WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES, and

COALITION FOR CLEAN AFFORDABLE ENERGY,

Intervenors-Appellees.

In the Matter of the Application of Public Service Company of New Mexico for Approval of the Abandonment of the Four Corners Power Plant and Issuance of a Financing Order,

NMPRC Case No. 21-00017-UT

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO'S CONSOLIDATED REPLY BRIEF TO THE ANSWER BRIEFS OF THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION, NEW ENERGY ECONOMY, SIERRA CLUB AND THE COALITION FOR CLEAN AFFORDABLE ENERGY

(Oral Argument Requested)

Stacey J. Goodwin, Associate General Counsel	Richard L. Alvidrez
PNM Resources, Inc.	Miller Stratvert P.A.
Corporate Headquarters - Legal Department	500 Marquette NW, Suite 1100
Albuquerque, NM 87158-0805	P.O. Box 25687
[phone]	Albuquerque, NM 87125
[e-mail]	[phone]
	[e-mail]

Raymond L. Gifford

Debrea M. Terwilliger

Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

2138 West 32nd Ave., Suite 300

Denver, CO 80211

1. 626-2350

1. 626-2329

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

June 17, 2022

	TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE………………………………….................ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………...iii
I.	INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................	1
II.	ARGUMENT................................................................................................	3
A.	Standard of Review........................................................................................	7
B. The Commission's Denial of Abandonment Was Unlawful.......................	10
	The Commission's denial of abandonment based on its determination
that PNM failed to provide evidence of "actual" replacement resources to
satisfy Section 62-18-4(D) is contrary to the law and should be reversed. ....	11
a. The Commission legally erred in its interpretation of Section 62-18-4(D)
and applicable abandonment standards under the ETA..................................	13
i. Past Commission practice is not indicative of the current statutory
mandate. ..........................................................................................................	14

1. A plain reading of Section 62-18-4(D) does not require identification of actual replacement resources before approval is sought, and such a requirement may detrimentally affect PNM's efforts to sign competitive bids…………………………………………………………………………..19
2. PNM's right to defer approval of actual replacement resources is not

merely a process question. ..............................................................................

21

1. NEE's reliance on PNM's prior arguments in another Court proceeding

is misplaced.....................................................................................................

21

1. The Answer Briefs' arguments on the evidence of adequate potential

new resources are unpersuasive. .....................................................................	23
	The Commission's legal conclusion that abandonment can be denied
because PNM "breached" an IRP commitment is unlawful and should be
reversed. ..........................................................................................................	28
C.	The Commission May Not Impose Further Review of the Prudence of Four
Corners on Remand. ...........................................................................................	31
D.	Other Irrelevant Arguments Should be Rejected.........................................	36
III.	CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................	38

i

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Rule 12-318(G) NMRA, Appellant Public Service Company of New Mexico states that the body of this Consolidated Reply Brief is 38 pages and contains 8,978 words in Times New Roman 14-point font, a proportionally-spaced typeface, as calculated by Word for Microsoft 365 MSO Version 2108, and is therefore within the limits permitted by the Court's order issued on May 31, 2022.

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Cases
Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,
463 U.S. 29 (1983)..........................................................................................	8
Securities & Exch. Comm'n v. Chenery,
332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947)................................................................................	8
New Mexico Cases
Am. Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Empls. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of
Bernalillo County,
2016-NMSC-017.....................................................................................	32, 33
Alto Vill. Servs. Corp. v. N. M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n,
1978-NMSC-085, 92 N.M. 323 ....................................................................	26
Atlixco Coal. v. Maggiore,
1998-NMSC-134, 125 N.M. 786 ....................................................................	8
Attorney Gen. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n,
2013-NMSC-042...........................................................................................	36
Attorney Gen. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n,
1984-NMSC-081, 101 N.M. 549 ..................................................................	26
Cibola Energy Corp. v. Roselli,
1987-NMCA-055, 105 N.M. 774 .................................................................	10
Citizens for Fair Rates & the Env't v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n,
2022-NMSC-010...............................................................................	13, 14, 33
Leger v. Leger,
2022-NMSC-007...........................................................................................	14
Montano v. N.M. Real Estate Appraiser's Bd.,
2009-NMCA-009, 145 N.M. 494 ...................................................................	9
iii

N.M. Indus. Energy Consumers v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n,
1986-NMSC-059, 104 N.M. 565 ..................................................................	24
N.M. Indus. Energy Consumers v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n,
1991-NMSC-018, 111 N.M. 622 ..................................................................	32
N.M. Mining Ass'n v. N.M. Water Quality Control Comm'n,
2007-NMCA-010, 141 N.M. 41 .....................................................................	9
Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n,
S-1-SC-37552 (Feb. 27, 2019) (non-precedential) .......................................	22
Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n,
2019-NMSC-012...........................................................................................	34
Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n,
1991-NMSC-083, 112 N.M. 379 ..................................................................	14
Resolute Wind 1 LLC v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n,
2022-NMSC-011.....................................................................................	34, 36
State ex rel. Egolf v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n,
2020-NMSC-018...............................................................................	12, 23, 30
Tenneco Oil Co. v. N.M. Water Quality Control Comm'n,
1987-NMCA-153, 107 N.M. 469 .........................................................	8, 9, 10
New Mexico Regulatory Cases
Re Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M.,
101 P.U.R. 4th 126, 1989 WL 418588, NMPSC Case No. 2146 Pt. II	......... 24
In the Matter of the Application of Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M. for the
Abandonment and Decertification of the Las Vegas Generation Station in Las
Vegas, N. M.,
NMPRC Case No. 10-00264-UT (2011) .....................................................	15

iv