PRC denies our interlocutory appeal, setting a dangerous precedent for future cases and failing in its duty to New Mexico

Today the whole point of our Motion for Interlocutory Appeal was ignored when PRC Commissioners focused exclusively on whether the violations we managed to uncover through independent research were damning or relevant to their decision about Bernhard Capital Partners, and not on the much more important question: What do we NOT KNOW ABOUT because the Hearing Examiner's failed to grant our Motion to Compel and require Bernhard Capital Partners to respond to our discovery questions?

And much more importantly, what does the PRC and the public not know? 

At this time the case record is essentially empty of any relevant context about BCP's qualifications. With no experience running a gas utility, the only potential clue as to their character and capabilities lies in their history at other portfolio companies. But BCP's response - to claim nearly all such history as "third party discovery" - was essentially a hand to New Mexico's face.

In the Avangrid case our Motion to Compel answers to questions about the company's history was not only granted by the Hearing Examiner, but he issued a bench request that went further than what we had requested. The Hearing Examiner demanded that Avangrid respond to our questions about their record, demanded further answers, and even fined Avangrid for its failure to adhere to the rules of discovery at the PRC. That is the kind of diligence we expect from regulators.

As Commissioner Aguilera noted in his comments today, the PRC itself can investigate BCP further, and in fact that is exactly what we expect and deserve from this regulatory body. If the PRC had done so, we would not have filed an appeal. The PRC should insist upon a complete record before making a decision in this case. It is the PRC's duty to do so, and the naive decision to take at face value BCP's flimsy argument that it does not "operate" the companies that it owns, and therefore does not have to provide testimony about them, does not bode well for the future.

BCP wrote in their Brief in Chief:

"NMGC’s operations department meets or exceeds industry standards for customer engagement, leak detection and work inspection. These mandated standards will apply regardless of who the owner is."

To quote from our response: 

"The Joint Applicants’ assertion that ownership “doesn’t matter” because NMGC is currently well run is both legally incorrect and deeply troubling. While it is undisputed that NMGC presently meets or exceeds Commission service standards, Commission precedent has never treated baseline regulatory compliance as a substitute for careful scrutiny of a proposed owner’s qualifications. To the contrary, the Commission has repeatedly required persuasive evidence that a proposed acquirer possesses substantial operational experience, demonstrated excellence in performance, financial strength, and a proven track record of owning and operating regulated utilities.  These attributes are not incidental; they are integral customer protections. They reduce operational and financial risk, ensure continuity of service quality over time, and give the Commission confidence that the utility will continue to meet its obligations—particularly when facing unforeseen challenges, capital constraints, or system stress.By urging the Hearing Examiners to rely solely on NMGC’s existing operations while disregarding Bernhard Capital Partners’ record, the Joint Applicants misstate both the law and Commission precedent. The Commission has never approved a change in control based on the theory that “a well-run utility will remain well run regardless of who owns it.” Instead, prior approvals have rested on the acquiring company’s demonstrated ability to provide meaningful operational support, transfer best practices, supply experienced management and technical resources, and absorb financial shocks without resorting to ratepayer harm. Joint Applicants’ argument would invert this framework by treating ownership as irrelevant—an approach that would render the Commission’s Six-Factor Test and public-interest review largely meaningless."

If the Commission is not going to insist that it has all the information it needs to decide a case then predatory companies will be happy to oblige with more secrecy.

Accusations that New Energy Economy is seeking headlines are 100% accurate. Headlines about utility acquisition cases are necessary to ensure that the public is aware of important issues that affect their lives directly. Todays headline should read: PRC ignores important issue of transparency and sets dangerous precedent that puts New Mexican families at risk.

The PRC may still deny BCP's acquisition of New Mexico Gas Company because they still have not met the basic public interest requirements. Thank you to everyone who spoke so eloquently today at the Open Meeting and asked the Commission to stand up for the people. We hope that they are listening.