PRC: THIRD BENCH REQUEST ORDER AND EXTENSION OF TIME
Editor’s Note: The PRC has joined the Whaley and Lucero complaints below, including questions about the $37 million Guzman Energy separation from TRi-State for which KCEC did not get permission from the NMPRC.
BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE FORMAL )
COMPLAINT OF BILLE. WHALEY AGAINST ) Case No. 17-00017-UT KIT CARSON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, )
INC. )
THIS MATTER comes before the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (” Commission”) upon the formal complaint (“Formal Complaint”) filed with the Commission by Bill E. Whaley (“Whaley” or “Complainant”) against Kit Carson Electric Cooperative, Inc. (“KCEC”).
Whereupon, being duly informed,
THE COMMISSION FINDS AND CONCLUDES:
1. On May 22, 2017, the Commission issued its Second Bench Request Order which ordered KCEC to file a status report regarding the Whaley Formal Complaint by noon on May 26, 2017.
2. The Second Bench Request also ordered Staff to file by noon on May 30, 2017 its response to KCEC’s status report filed on May 26, 2017.
3. On May 24, 2017, Mr. Jerome Lucero (“Lucero”) filed a motion to intervene1 in the Whaley Formal Complaint entitled Response to Judith Amers comments on my formal complaint 17-000-19-UT In this pleading,. Lucero referenced the May 17, 2017 Final Order Dismissing Complaint without Prejudice issued by the Commission in the Lucero Formal Complaint, Case No. 17-00019-UT.
The May 17th Final Order, Decretal Paragraph B. stated: “The allegations made in the Complaint, the Supplemental, Pursuant to 1.2.2.23 NMAC.Complaint and Lucero’s Reply that relate to and/or overlap with the allegations made in Whaley v. KCEC, Case No. 17-00017-UT (see footnote 1 herein for footnote 6 of Final Order)2 will be fully examined and determined in the Whaley docket. Nothing in this Order precludes Lucero from filing a motion to intervene in the Whaley docket.”
4.The Commission finds the Lucero should be permitted to intervene as a party in this Whaley v. KCEC docket, Case No. 17-00017-UT, regarding issues that relate to and/or overlap between Lucero’s Complaint and the allegations made in the Whaley Complaint.
5.Additionally, Lucero’s Motion to Intervene raises questions regarding KCEC’s failure to obtain Commission approval to exit the Tri-State power contract.
6.The Commission finds that KCEC and Staff should be granted additional time to respond to Lucero’s Tri-State issue and, additionally, Staff should be granted additional time to respond to the Second Bench Request.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
A.Staff is granted an extension of time, until 2:00 p.m. on June 2, 2017, to file the response required by the Second Bench Request (a response to KCEC’s status report filed on May 26, 2017, stating whether KCEC has accomplished all of the necessary refunds to all ratepayers in all classes affected by the September ih Order and whether KCEC has accomplished all of the necessary refunds to all ratepayers.
“Footnote 6: ‘The specific allegations that relate to Case No. 17-00019-UT were made by Mr. Lucero in his March 4th Response to KCEC’s Response which stated: “First of all let me begin saying that I am unsure of the place to file my response to KCEC’s 26 page response to my motion requesting the PRC to investigate KCEC’s billing p’ractices.
At this point the PRC has issued a separate case number 17-00019-
UT as I understand it to begin the process to have PRC staff to investigate the overall billing practices of KCEC.”‘ classes affected the Final Order in Case No. 15-00375-UT including a statement as to whether there still remaining customers to whom refunds need to be made).
B.In its June 2nd Response, Staff shall also include a response to Lucero’s issue regarding KCEC’s failure to obtain Commission approval to exit the Tri-State power contract, including its opinion as to whether or not Commission approval was required?
C.No later than close of business on May 31, 2017, KCEC shall respond to Lucero’s issue regarding KCEC’s failure to obtain Commission approval to exit the Tri State power contract, including its opinion as to whether or not Commission approval was required.
D.This Order is effective immediately.
E.Copies of this Order shall be served on all persons listed on the attached Certificate of Service, via e-mail to those whose e-mail addresses are known, and otherwise via regular mail.
ISSUED at Santa Fe, New Mexico, this 26th day of May, 2017.
NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION
TELEPHONICALLY APPROVED
SANDY JONES, CHAIRMAN
BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE FORMAL COMPLAINT ) OF BILL E. WHALEY AGAINST KIT CARSON ) ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case No. 17-00017-UT
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Third Bench Request Order and Extension of Time issued on May 26, 2017, was served via email on May 26, 2017, to the parties listed below:
Bill E. Whaley Charles V. Garcia
Laura E. Sanchez-Rivet John Reynolds Bradford Borman
Jack Sidler Milo Chavez
Vincent De Cesare Judith Amer Jerome Lucero
bwhaley@newmex .com; cga rcia@cuddymccarthy.com ; lsanchez-rivet@cuddymccarthy.com; John.reynolds@state.nm.us; Bradford.Bonnan@state.nm.us;
Jack.Sidler@state.nm.us; Milo.Chavez@state.nm.us ; Vincent.Decesare @state.nm.us; Judith.Amer@state.nm.us; Jflucero9-12@q.com;
DATED this 26th day of May, 2017.
NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION
TELEPHONICALLY APPROVED
Kathleen M. Segura, Law Clerk