Minutes - New Mexico Public Regulation Commission

MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR OPEN MEETING
NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2012
TIME: 9:30 a. m.
PLACE: PERA Building
4th Floor Hearing Room
1120 Paseo de Peralta
Santa F~, New Mexico 87501
A quorum was present as follows:
Members Present:
Commission Chairman Patrick H. Lyons
Commissioner Vice Chair Theresa Becenti-Aguilar
Commissioner Ben L. Hall
Commissioner Jason A. Marks
Commissioner Douglas J. Howe [Telephonically]
Members Absent:
Staff Present
Johnny Montoya, Chief of Staff
Rick Blumenfeld, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff for Legal Affairs
Sandra Skogen, Associate General Counsel
Michael C. Smith, Associate General Counsel
Ashley Schannauer, Hearing Examiner
Anthony Medeiros, Hearing Examiner
Mike Ripperger, Telecommunications Bureau Chief
Jim Brack, Utility Division
Arthur Bishop, PIO
Others Present
Carl Boaz, Stenographer
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Open Meeting was scheduled at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to proper notice under NMSA 1978,
10-15-1(c), and the Commission’s Open Meeting Policy. Commission Chairman Patrick Lyons called the
Regular Open meeting to order at 9:30 a.m., in the Fourth Floor Hearing Room, PERA Building, 1120
Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
A copy of the sign-in sheet for the Regular Open Meeting is incorporated herewith to these minutes as
Exhibit 1.
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 1

A copy of the Agenda for the Regular Open meeting is incorporated herewith to these minutes as
Exhibit 2.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. INTRODUCTIONS
There were no introductions.
3. MISCELLANEOUS ANNOUNCEMENTS
¯
Recognition of the Employee of the Month for September
Chairman Lyons invited Commissioner Hall to announce the recognition.
Commissioner Hall read Rose Ellen Guillen’s certificate of recognition and presented it to her. The
Commissioners congratulated her on her award and pictures were taken.
4. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Commissioner Howe asked to have 12-00219-UT moved to the front of Regular Action.
Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Hall
seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote.
5. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
¯ Minutes of the Regular Open Meeting of September 13, 2012
¯ Minutes of the Regular Open Meeting of September 18, 2012
Commissioner Marks moved to approve the minutes of September 13, 2012 and September 18,
2012 as presented. Chairman Lyons seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice
vote.
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION
A. Utility Division
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 2

12-00219-UT
IN THE MATTER OF SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY’S
APPLICATION REGARDING: (1)ITS 2011 ANNUAL RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO REPORT; (2) ITS 2012 ANNUAL RENEWABLE ENERGY
PORTFOLIO PROCUREMENT PLAN; (3) ITS REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES
FROM (A) THE DIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR "OTHER" RENEWABLE
ENERGY RESOURCES FOR 2012, AND (B) SPECIFIED PORTIONS OF THE
MEDIUM SOLAR DISTRIBUTED GENERATION ("DG"_ TARIFF; 94) ITS
REQUEST TO REVISE AND CANCEL CERTAIN DG TARIFFS; (5) ITS REPORT
ON PROJECTED 2013 AND 2014 COST ACCRUALS IN THE REGULATORY
ASSETS APPROVED IN PRIOR CASES; AND (6) APPROVAL OF REQUESTS
RELATED TO WlNDSOURCE.
(Ashley Schannauer, Michael C. Smith Recommended Decision
Mr. Smith presented information regarding this matter to the Commission. SPS is requesting a variance
on their renewable portfolio because two developers, Sunrise Energy Ventures and Infinergy Solar, were
unable to complete their projects within the nine-month period required to qualify for the rate that was
provided in the tariffs. The stated reason for inability to meet the deadline was beyond their control. The
large number of applications was overwhelming and engineering slowed the process down. Their request
for a variance was to allow extra time to qualify for that rate.
The HE recommended the variance be granted on an equitable basis and he believed it was in the
public interest to grant it.
Mr. Schannauer had nothing to add and thought Mr. Smith did a good job of summarizing the RD.
Commissioner Howe noted in the memo it said one reason was that SPS had not informed the
developers about the deadline but told them they could delay their work and that was a reason for the delay
in project completion. So it was not beyond their control. He asked Mr. Schannauer about his thinking on it.
Mr. Schannauer said he used a prior situation where PRC granted PNM a variance for the same
reason. He agreed that part of the delay was miscommunication and misunderstanding created by SPS to
the developers. The developer reasonably relied on SPS claiming that it had the authority to issue the
extensions that it issued for both companies.
Commissioner Howe concluded that it wasn’t a matter of being beyond the control of the utility but the
developer shouldn’t be penalized for the SPS mistake. Mr. Schannauer agreed.
Commissioner Howe said some of these projects were government projects and asked if Mr.
Schannauer could identify those.
Mr. Schannauer said Sunrise Energy Ventures of New Mexico had three agreements: City of Roswell,
the Loving School District and New Mexico Military Institute (NMMI) in Roswell. Seventeen of the twentyfive
projects were for the City of Roswell. Three installations were for the Loving School District and five
were for NMMI and they apparently had some of their own wells so it was a combination of wells and power
for those buildings.
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11, 2012 Page 3

Commissioner Howe said the only concem he had was that by doing so they would not open the door
for every single delay that happens with any utility. What the Commission focused on was that it was not
due to the fault of the developer. Chairman Lyons agreed.
Commissioner Marks read somewhere in the RD that the Sunrise developer testified on how much they
would lose if the variance was not granted. He thought it was $2 million.
Mr. Schannauer said they spent $2 million on solar panels but possibly could resell them. That was onpage
11 in the bottom paragraph.
Commissioner Marks read the paragraph and asked how much they were going to earn on this.
Mr. Schannauer said the hearing didn’t get into that.
Commissioner Marks said it was $1 million for ten years and the Commission didn’t know what the net
profit would be. Mr. Schannauer agreed.
Commissioner Marks said he was at the hearing and asked questions. It seemed to be about 5% net
profit. They wanted the variance and the other company had the same kind of projects. They got in the
queue a little late.
Mr. Schannauer agreed. It was January, 2011 right after the new tariff.
Commissioner Marks pointed out that was 3 months late. For Sunrise the seven cents was
substantially pure profit. There is the economy of scale there.
Commissioner Marks asked if Infinergy was a third party agreement. Mr. Schannauer agreed.
Commissioner Marks asked if the combined impact on the RCT would be about 1%. Mr. Schannauer
agreed.
Commissioner Marks was convinced in the hearing that they spent their money late last year to get the
federal tax benefit and did the engineering. He asked why staff didn’t consider asking for a reduction in the
REC rate from the over generous 20 cent rate in exchange for the variance. He asked who was protecting
the consumer interest here or if anyone spoke for the consumer here.
Mr. Schannauer said that SPS had trouble getting DG participation and needed something to get the
programs going. He thought the Commission understood at that time.
Commissioner Marks noted that when these projects went into the queue the company dropped it down
to 13 cents and if they had been on time there would be no question. But things got delayed. As it stands
they didn’t have a legal stand. If it was your money you would want to renegotiate to save some money.
He was surprised that no one brought that up. This is one percent on people’s bills with a substantial
number of projects at the highest REC rate and if not done, SPS would purchase other DG at a lower rate.
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 4

No one was looking out for the consumers.
Commissioner Hall asked Mr. Schannauer if SPS was paying 20 cents because they didn’t have
enough people in the area to do the work and were paying extra to expedite the project.
Mr. Schannauer said when they were offering the DG program SPS didn’t get any interest and this was
necessary to fulfill their portfolio requirements.
Commissioner Hall asked if the two companies decided they could finish those projects in nine months
and then realized they couldn’t.
Mr. Schannauer said SPS specified the nine months. That was incorporated into the company’s tariff.
Commissioner Hall understood but now the same two companies were doing the same two projects but
taking twice as long.
Mr. Schannauer said SPS didn’t have enough engineers to analyze the project quickly. That required
Sunrise to find an engineer to customize it to work with SPS equipment.
Commissioner Hall asked why they would start a project without knowing how it would be done instead
of having a plan up front.
Mr. Schannauer said they were planning to use the same equipment they used in previous
applications. They didn’t discover that wouldn’t work until they got it started.
Commissioner Hall said he wouldn’t contract himself out unless he knew what he was doing. Here it
looked like the contractor was admitting he didn’t know what he was doing and should have found out first.
Mr. Schannauer said in the testimony, even SPS was surprised about it. They were both trying to figure
it out.
Commissioner Hall felt the project was ill designed to start with.
Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar commented that SPS representatives attend the open meetings
regularly and it is surprising that this confusion occurred. They are moving forward for renewable energy
but when there is a delay, no matter whose fault it is, The Commission wants to have a good way to
approve these projects. SPS will be able to accomplish their goals but we are looking at how they
participate and looking out for the consumers.
Chairman Lyons asked when the 20 cent approval took place.
Mr. Schannauer said the initial case was in 2008. The Commission then approved an SPS
procurement plan that had the 20 cent plan in place. He was skeptical when he first saw it but the
Commission approved it last December several months late and felt that’s what the Commission wanted.
The deadline was August 2011.
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 5

Chairman Lyons believed in renewable energy but it needed to be the most cost-effective. Solar isn’t.
The Commission should look at the cost to the consumer and weigh the cost regardless of what it is. He
asked about the delay to Windsource.
Mr. Schannauer said each year the company has to file their renewable procurement plan.
Chairman Lyons reasoned that it didn’t just affect the DG.
Commissioner Marks said the Commission bifurcated the case.
Chairman Lyons asked why Windsource was on there then.
Mr. Smith explained it was the caption for the whole thing. That was expedited for consideration. They
were trying to find out if they could get this. Every time any part of this case comes up, the whole caption
comes up.
Commissioner Howe clarified that this is an opportunity to reopen the contract of SPS with developers.
The interest of investors should be balanced with consumer interests. The developers have a right to rely
on what SPS told them in December and if the Commission throws everything out the door in October, it is
not a balanced approach. He asked why the developers should be penalized for SPS mistakes. They
relied on the representation of SPS.
Commissioner Howe moved to approve the order but it failed for lack of a second.
Chairman Lyons moved to approve the order as amended with sixteen cents for the REC.
Commissioner Marks seconded the motion for discussion.
Commissioner Marks agreed with that thinking but didn’t think the Commission could pull 16 cents out
of the air. He wanted to approve Infinergy and send Sunrise back to the HE.
Mr. Smith agrees that they didn’t know what the right rate should be.
Commissioner Marks thought Chairman Lyons wisely recognized that throwing the developer out on
the street was not the right answer. This was not a balance. If the projects had been done a year ago they
would be at 20 cents and the Commission would not debate them. The developer knew there was a nine
month deadline. They were not at fault but to hold them completely harmless the rate was not 20 cents
today but much lower. Legally the Commission needed to accomplish it by remanding it.
Chairman Lyons said he attended part of the hearing and asked Sunrise if they could accept 19 cents
but they refused.
Commissioner Marks understood but this would send a message and maybe they would accept it. If
not, they could take it to the Supreme Court. He proposed a substitute motion to approve Infinergy and
remand Sunrise part back with a rate to consider.
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11, 2012 Page 6

Ms. Ellis said Sunrise was present and would like to speak.
Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar said the Commission was very concerned and were not taking it lightly.
She asked the company to consider it seriously.
Commissioner Marks moved to table this case temporarily. Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Howe couldn’t agree unless it was tabled until Tuesday because he would be unable to
get back on the phone later.
Mr. Parker said it was based on the record. They knew the costs and how much they stood to make.
Commissioner Marks said the Commission didn’t know that.
Mr. Schannauer said it was not in the record.
Mr. Parker asked if that mattered. He could be comfortable with making a decision based on the record
at 16 cents.
Mr. Smith asked if Infinergy had a representative present. [They were not represented.]
Commissioner Marks, in deference to Commissioner Howe, moved to partially approve,
adopting the recommendation for Infinergy and taking no action on the rest which would be
brought back. Commissioner Howe seconded the motion.
Chairman Lyons explained to the public that they would delay the Sunrise portion to next Tuesday.
During a brief discussion on whether to table until Tuesday or later in the meeting, the SPS and
Sunrise representatives had departed to a conference room and Commissioner Howe was lost to the
phone.
Commissioner Marks moved to table this matter and return to the agenda. Commissioner Hall
seconded the motion to return to agenda and the motion passed by unanimous (4-0) voice vote.
Commissioner Howe was not present for the vote.
o
REGULAR ACTION
A. Transportation Division
12-00297-TREN
IN THE MATTER OF THE FORMAL COMPLAINT OF HENRY AND GEORGIA
ROMERO AGAINST ANAYA’S ROADRUNNER WRECKER SERVICE, INC.
AND BOBS TOWING.
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 7

(Sandra Skogen)
Order
Ms. Skogen presented information regarding this matter to the Commission. Both parties were
present. She explained there were a number of complaints against the company and a number were under
PRC jurisdiction. It alleged they had two locations in addition to a main location. The location on Industrial
Road appeared to be an unstaffed storage facility which violated Commission rules. They alleged some
vehicles were left overnight unsecured and without lighting in violation of rules and the complaint was that
their vehicles were licensed, registered or uninsured and the two principals had no CDL licenses. The final
complaint was that the companies had not filed annual reports for a number of years which she had
confirmed.
The towing companies did not file an answer within the 20 day period so she prepared an order
directing Transportation Division staff to conduct an investigation and report back to the Commission within
30 days.
One minor change was made to the order on page 2 at item 6 where she quoted the Commission rule
to insert "Commission or" before Director of Transportation to initiate an investigation.
Commissioner Marks asked Mr. Anaya if he received the September 6th notice requiring a response.
Mr. Anaya didn’t remember and said his wife was out of the room.
Commissioner Marks noted there were two companies with two different locations.
Ms. Skogen said according to the last annual report filed by each towing company their official location
for both was 2876 Industrial Road which was secured but not staffed.
Commissioner Marks thought there could not be two towing companies with the same location. Mr.
Parker agreed.
Commissioner Marks asked if staff checked that out. They wouldn’t have to go to the location to figure
that out. Ms. Skogen didn’t know.
Commissioner Marks asked if the Transportation Division staff members were aware of this complaint.
Ms. Skogen agreed and said the notice required an answer. She said typical protocol was that staff
relied on General Counsel to bring it to the Commission for action.
Commissioner Hall asked why it needed Commission action if the Transportation Division knows there
was a violation.
Ms. Skogen explained that the rules required that. Her legal position was that they could order the
investigation.
Commissioner Marks asked Ms. Anaya if his wife received a notice of complaint on September 6.
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 8

Ms. Anaya said she received it and faxed it to her attorney.
Commissioner Marks said just based on the record, it appeared they were in violation of the rules and it
didn’t need an investigation for that.
Mr. Parker recommended the Commission do what Ms. Skogen recommended.
Commissioner Hall moved to approve the order/Chairman Lyons seconded the motion and it
passed by unanimous (4-0) voice vote. Commissioner Howe was not present for the vote. So
Ordered.
Commissioner Marks asked Ms. Anaya to let their attorney know about the action today.
Mr. Anaya said he wouldn’t have known about the hearing today except by a call from Mr. Montoya.
B. Utility Division
11-00158-UT
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF VIRGIN MOBILE USA, L.P. FOR THE
DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER FOR
LIFELINE SERVICES.
(Margaret Caffey.Moquin) Order
Ms. Caffey-Moquin presented information regarding this matter to the Commission. She said the
Commission had directed her to return with a final order after questions last week and an extensive
presentation by Mr. Medeiros. She highlighted parts of the order and pointed out minor changes since the
last meeting. She had consulted extensively with Mr. Medeiros on it.
The main question had to do with the fact the RD made clear that Virgin Mobile under the ETC
designation would not be permitted to serve on tribal lands and the reasons were first that Virgin Mobile
didn’t apply for that and also that the FCC order expressly forbade Virgin Mobile from operating on tribal
lands. The Commission had to follow the FCC.
In a related issue on page six of the order was disclaimer language regarding Virgin Mobile materials
and their exceptions she recommended that the exception now say that in their marketing materials they
made sure customers knew how to decide which company to go with. The difference in price was $25 per
month versus $1 per month. The changes in the order were on page six in the middle of the page right at
the end of the first sentence, "from other carriers who provide that service" because there were other
carriers who were providing service on tribal lands.
Commissioner Hall asked if they couldn’t even sign up with Virgin Mobile if they lived on tribal lands.
Ms. Caffey-Moquin said they could sign up but couldn’t be served with enhanced service but the
consumer had no way to know. They could buy a prepaid card in Santa F~ without knowing.
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 9

The other changes were editorial in nature to clarify language with the opening of the new docket. The
HE suggested a separate order to open a new docket as on pages 7-8 of the draft. She quoted the
improved language. It would also designate Mr. Medeiros as HE for the new docket. She recommended
adopting the final order with those modifications.
Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar said she had asked that it be tabled was to take a second look at the
language and she had chance to visit with Mr. Medeiros. Customers could go to a store and buy a prepaid
card and now that has been clarified and all that information was there. She thanked Mr. Medeiros for his
work on it and Ms. Caffey-Moquin for fielding the questions and clarifying it for her.
Chairman Lyons noted that Mr. Albright had wanted to address comments made by Ms. Caffey-Moquin
that he felt were not supported in the record.
Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar was not in favor of allowing such statements. The HE and Ms. Caffey-
Moquin have had it for quite some time and were able to resolve the issues.
Commissioner Marks asked about the FCC prohibiting Virgin Mobile from serving on tribal lands.
Mr. Medeiros explained that under the federal act the states have primary authority over ETC
designations. Certain states relinquished that so the FCC had designations for those states.
Commissioner Marks understood that in four states they decided but New Mexico was not preempted.
Mr. Medeiros agreed and said Pennsylvania took their authority back.
Commissioner Marks asked if the Commission could make a different judgment call.
Mr. Medeiros said Tracfone had been excluded.
Commissioner Marks understood they couldn’t offer lifeline on tribal lands but this was a different life
line.
Mr. Medeiros said the customer could be confused about that.
Commissioner Marks asked if any other carriers were offering special tribal lifeline and if any of them
were wireless.
Mr. Medeiros thought there were eight wireless carriers. Most of them participated in the high cost
program- both programs. And they were supposed to use that funding to expand their facilities but
Tracfone and Virgin Mobile have a different model. All major carriers were required to provide tribal life line.
Tribal lifeline was expansive. The prepaid cards were the confusing parts of it. It was not a perfect firewall
when prepaid cards were in stores. They were trying to catch that so that customers could get the full
benefit offered.
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 10

Mr. Medeiros explained how the disclaimer could work.
Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar asked if Ms. Caffey-Moquin felt this was the best legal language the
Commission could adopt today. Ms. Caffey-Moquin agreed.
Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar said she was aware of families that used prepaid cards when their child
went off to college. They could also buy a Master Card and keep track of it item by item.
Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar moved to adopt the order with revised language on page six and
seven. Commissioner Marks seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (4-0) voice vote.
Commissioner Howe was not present for the vote. So Ordered.
8. DISCUSSION
A. Transportation Division
11-00052-TRR
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL
RESPONSE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., D/G/A AMERICAN MEDICAL
RESPONSE, FOR A TARIFF INCREASE.
(Ashley Schannauer, Michael C. Smith Recommended Decision on Remand
Mr. Smith said AMR representatives were present and this was back before the Commission from
remand to the HE for staff to develop a record for financial support on the request for an 18% increase.
There was a big difference on the increase between emergency and non-emergency service.
The HE determined it was a reasonable increase and recommended approval. Emergency was more
costly. Medicare didn’t allow AMR to recover their actual costs. The law allowed that cost shifting. The
question was whether the increase was reasonable.
Commissioner Marks said the HE used the 2012 test year and asked if that procedure applied to
transportation as well as utilities.
Mr. Schannauer said there was nothing in statute or rules about it.
Commissioner Marks asked if there had been other such cases using a proposed test year.
Mr. Schannauer said no.
Commissioner Marks asked if staff looked at 2011 actuals.
Mr. Schannauer said they included actuals for 2010 and 2011.
Commissioner Marks asked what the difference was of 2012 actuals and 2012 budgeted.
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 11

Mr. Medeiros gave the data on financials for 2011 and 2012.
Commissioner Marks asked how many total runs AMR made in 2011.
Mr. Medeiros said they made 16,040.
Chairman Lyons noted the 2012 projection was 16,355.
Commissioner Marks concluded expenses were going up 6% and volume only 2%. Through August
they said their expenses went up 6.5% but looking at actuals that was not the case. It looked like expenses
were only up 2%. There was a 4% discrepancy on page 7. Their margin was $200,000 above expenses
for the 2012 year to date and he asked if there were capital numbers included. Mr. Schannauer agreed.
Commissioner Marks asked if they provided a financial statement - a balance sheet. Mr. Schannauer
agreed. Commissioner Marks examined it.
Chairman Lyons said the Commission remanded this on June 28th and granted a higher interim rate but
he thought there were some that decreased.
Mr. Medeiros said there were no decreases.
Chairman Lyons asked how the proposed amount on page 9 related to the state-wide rates.
Mr. Schannauer said the initial RD was shown on page 5.
Chairman Lyons asked if there was no basic life support rate.
Mr. Medeiros said the statewide basic life support rate was $715.
Chairman Lyons read the statewide and proposed rates and thought their proposed rates looked okay.
Commissioner Marks thought it looked a little high because they made $200,000 under current rates
and raising it to their proposed rate would give $700,000 on $7 million of revenue.
Mr. Parker said the period for exceptions was still open and he would bring it back after that
The Commission took no further action or discussion on it.
12-00219-UT
IN THE MATTER OF SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY’S
APPLICATION REGARDING: (1)ITS 2011 ANNUAL RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO REPORT; (2) ITS 2012 ANNUAL RENEWABLE ENERGY
PORTFOLIO PROCUREMENT PLAN; (3) ITS REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES
FROM (A) THE DIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR "OTHER" RENEWABLE
ENERGY RESOURCES FOR 2012, AND (B) SPECIFIED PORTIONS OF THE
MEDIUM SOLAR DISTRIBUTED GENERATION ("DG"_ TARIFF; 94) ITS
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 12

REQUEST TO REVISE AND CANCEL CERTAIN DG TARIFFS; (5) ITS REPORT
ON PROJECTED 2013 AND 2014 COST ACCRUALS IN THE REGULATORY
ASSETS APPROVED IN PRIOR CASES; AND (6) APPROVAL OF REQUESTS
RELATED TO WlNDSOURCE.
(Ashley Schannauer, Michael C. Smith Recommended Decision
Commissioner Marks moved to take case 12-00219-UT off the table. Commissioner Lyons
seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (4-0) voice vote. Commissioner Howe was not
present for the vote.
The representative from Sunrise said they were willing to stipulate to a 17 cents amount. It was a big hit
but fair in light of the fact that they relied on Commission rates but to get it done today SPS and the
contractor were willing.
Commissioner Hall asked what the difference was between Sunrise’s scope of work and Infinergy’s.
Mr. Schannauer said they were in different places but didn’t know the details on how the projects would
differ.
Commissioner Hall said if Sunrise and Infinergy were performing the same tasks her wondered why
one was 13 cents and the other 17 cents.
Ms. Sakya said when Sunrise purchased their solar equipment it was at a different time than when
Infinergy did and was at a higher cost. Also, the customers they were working with had different rates -
some were irrigation and others were municipal customers and those SPS electric rates were different.
Regarding the nine-month extension, she didn’t know why they were coming at the same time. Sunrise
made their application in October, 2010 when the Commission’s rate was 20 cents. They invested a
substantial amount and were working to complete the projects. The delays they experienced were
engineering technical reasons.
Commissioner Hall pointed out that Sunrise had four months longer to complete their project than
Infinergy had.
Ms. Sakya said SPS took much longer with the engineering for the Sunrise projects.
Commissioner Marks moved to adopt the order adopting the HE’s RD except with a reduction to
17cents from 20 cents as stipulated by the parties. Chairman Lyons seconded the motion and it
passed by unanimous (4-0) voice vote. Commissioner Howe was not present for the vote. S._9o
Ordered.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 13

10. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, BOB PARKER
There were no communications with Chief of Staff for Legal Affairs.
11. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHIEF OF STAFF, JOHNNY MONTOYA
There were no communications with Chief of Staff.
12. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSIONERS
There were no communications with Commissioners.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion
and it passed by unanimous voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:37 am.
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 14

ATTEST:
Carl B~g~~
APPROVED:~~’~~-~ ~
FrATRICK H. LYONS, CH~MA~
;UILAR, VICE C
JASON A. MARKS, COMMISSIONER
BEN L.3,tA~L, COIV~MISSIONER
DOUGLAS J. HOWE, C~:I’MMISSIONER
Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting October 11,2012 Page 15

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION
OPEN MEETING
SIGN-IN SHEET
DATE:
!
Company Name (if any)
Thank you for attending this meeting.
EXHIBIT 1
PRC 10/11/12

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION
REGULAR OPEN MEETING
Thursday~ October 11~ 2012
9:30 A.M.
PERA Building~ ~i. th Floor Hearing Room
112o Paseo de Peralta~ Santa Fe~ NM 87501
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2o
INTRODUCTIONS
MISCELLANEOUS ANNOUNCEMENTS
Recognition of the Employee of the Month of September
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
¯ Minutes of the Regular Open Meeting of September 13, 2012
¯ Minutes of the Regular Open Meeting of September 18, 2012
REGULAR ACTION
Transportation Division
12-o0297-TREN
IN THE MA~rER OF THE FORMAL COMPLAINT OF HENRY
Sandra Skogen
AND GEORGIA ROMERO AGAINST ANAYA~S
ROADRUNNER WRECKER SERVICEr INC. AND BOBS
TOWING.
Order
Regular Open Meeting Agenda
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Page I of 3
EXHIBIT 2
PRC 10/11/12

B. Utility Division
11-OO158-UT
Margaret Caffey-Moquin
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF VIRGIN MOBILE~
USA~ L.P. FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER FOR LIFELINE
SERVICES.
Order
a
DISCUSSIONIACTION
A. Utility Division
12-oo219-UT
Ashley Schannauer
Michael C. Smith
IN THE MATTER OF SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE
COMPANY’S APPLICATION REGARDING: (1) ITS 2Oll
ANNUAL RENEWABEL PORTFOLIO REPORT; (2) ITS 2012
ANNUAL RENEWABLE ENERGY PORTFOLIO
PROCUREMENT PLAN; (3) ITS REQUESTS FOR
VARIANCES FROM (A) THE DIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR "OTHER ~ RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES FOR
2012~ AND (B) SPECIFIED PORTIONS OF THE MEDIUM
SOLAR DISTRIBUTED GENERATION ("DG ~’) TARIFF; (4)
ITS REQUEST TO REVISE AND CANCEL CERTAIN DG
TARIFFS; (.5) ITS REPORT ON PROJECTED 2013 AND 2014
COST ACCRUALS IN THE REGULATORY ASSETS
APPROVED IN PRIOR CASES; AND (6) APPROVAL OF
REQUESTS RELATED TO WINDSOURCE.
Recommended Decision
DISCUSSION
Transportation Division
11-ooo52-TRR
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AMERICAN
Ashley Schannauer MEDICAL RESPONSE AMBULANCE SERVICEr INC.~ D/B/A
Michael C. Smith
AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE~ FOR A TARIFF
INCREASE.
Recommended Decision on Remand
Regular Open Meeting Agenda
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Page 2 of 3

9- PUBLIC COMMENT
10. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, BOB PARKER
11. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHIEF OF STAFF, JOHNNY MONTOYA
12. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSIONERS
13. ADJOURNMENT
The Commission will make reasonable efforts to post the agenda on the Commission’s
website 36 hours before the open meeting, but the inability to do so within the 36 hours
prior, will not require the Commission to delay the meeting or to refrain from taking action
on any agenda item on which it otherwise could act.
At any time during the Open Meeting the Commission may close the meeting to the public
to discuss matters not subject to the New Mexico Open Meetings Act. The Commission
may revise the order of the agenda items considered at this Open Meeting.
Notice is hereby given that the Commission may request that any party answer clarifying
questions or provide oral argument with respect to any matter on the agenda. If the
Commission makes such a request~ any party present at the meeting, either in person or by
telephone, shall have an equal opportunity to respond to such questions or argument. In
the event a party whose case is on the agenda chooses not to appear~ the absence of that
party shall not cause such discussion or argument to become ex-parte communications.
PERSONS WITH DI~ABIUTIES
ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING SPECIAL ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO
PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING SHOULD CONTACT THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OF THE COMMISSION (827-4084) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE OPEN MEETING.
Regular Open Meeting Agenda
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Page 3 of 3