BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSEDAMENDMENTS TO THE INTEGRATEDRESOURCE PLANNING RULES 17.7.3 NMAC

Case No. 17-00198-UT

ORDER INITIATING PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND NOTICE OF PROPOSEDRULEMAKING

NOTICE is hereby given that the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (the

"Commission"), on its own Motion, is commencing a rulemaking proceeding to amend the

Commission Rule on Integrated Resource Plans for Electric Utilities, 17.7.3 NMAC, (herein

after referred to as the IRP Rule). A copy of the proposed amendments to the IRP Rule are

attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (the "Proposed Amendments"). Being duly informed in the

premises,

THE COMMISSION FINDS AND CONCLUDES:

1. The Commission’s IRP Rule was adopted in 2007 to implement the 2005

Efficient Use of Energy Act (EUEA), NMSA § 62-17-1 et seq. The IRP Rule, following the

EUEA, require that investor-owned electric utilities engage in a resource planning process that

evaluates all feasible supply side and demand side resources on a comparable and consistent

basis.

2. Section 62-17-10 of the EUEA (2005), entitled Integrated resource planning

provides in pertinent part: "Pursuant to the commission’s rulemaking authority, public utilities

supplying electric or natural gas service to customers shall periodically file an integrated

resource plan with the commission. Utility integrated resource plans shall evaluate renewable

energy, energy efficiency, load management, distributed generation and conventional supply-sideOrder Initiating Proposed RulemakingNotice of Proposed RulemakingCase No. 17-000xx-UT Page 1 of ll

resources on a consistent and comparable basis and take into consideration risk and uncertainty

of fuel supply, price volatility and costs of anticipated environmental regulations in order to

most cost-effective portfolio of resources to supply the energy needs ofidentify the

customers..."

3. The Commission finds that it should consider amending the IRP Rule 17.7.3.12.B

NMAC to delete or amend Section 12 (B), Use in Resource Acquisition Proceeding.

4. The Commission finds that Section 12 (B) should be removed from the IRP Rule

for the following reason. Section 12 (B) states that a Commission-approved IR Plan (without

any material changes) is granted a presumption that included resource types are necessary in

subsequent resource acquisition proceedings or subsequent applications for a Certificate of

Convenience and Necessity ("CCN") proceeding. The Commission finds that this statement

potentially conflicts with Section 62-17-10 of the EUEA which expressly states that the IRP is a

planning tool The plain meaning of the word "plan" is a proposed or intended course of action

or an orderly or step by step conception or proposal for accomplishing an objective or a set of

decisions about how to do something in the future.1 At the time the IR Plan is approved by the

Commission, the IR Plan contains only proposed or intended resource types. Therefore, the

Commission-approved IR Plan, and its stated resource types, are not necessarily proof or prima

facie evidence that the stated resource types (not the particular resource being proposed) are

required by the public convenience and necessity. For this reason, Section 12 (B) is proposed to

be deleted or amended to comport with the express and plain meaning of the word "plan" in

Section 62-17-10 of the EUEA.

1 http://dictionarv.cambridge.org/dictionarv/english/plan; http://www.thefreedictionarv.com/.Order Initiating Proposed RulemaldngNotice of Proposed RulemakingCase No. 17-000xx-UT Page 2 of 11

5. The Commission finds that it should notice for public comment the proposed

revision to the IRP Rule 17.7.3.12.B NMAC contained in Exhibit 1 and conduct a public hearing

on the Proposed Amendments.

6. The Commission will accept written comments on the proposed changes to the

IRP Rule contained in Exhibit 1 and proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from any

interested person. Interested persons shall file their written comments on the proposed rules no

later than April 19, 2017. Any response comments shall be filed no later than October 18, 2017.

Comments suggesting changes to the proposed rule shall state and discuss the particular reasons

for the suggested changes and shall include all specific language necessary or appropriate to

effectuate the changes being suggested. Specific proposed language changes to the proposed

rule shall be in legislative format. All pleadings, including comments and suggested changes to

the proposed rules, shall bear the caption and Docket Number contained at the top of this Notice.

7. Written comments or written response comments, containing the Docket Number

in this matter, shall be sent to:

Melanie SandovalNew Mexico Public Regulation CommissionAttention: Case No.1120 Paseo de PeraltaSanta Fe, NM 87504

8. Copies of the proposed rules may be downloaded from the Commission’s web

site, www.nmprc.state.nm.us. The Commission will review all timely submitted written

comments and will hold a public comment hearing on November 15, 2017 on the 4t~ Hearing

Room, 1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico 8750, at 2:00 p.m.

9. Interested persons should contact the Commission to confirm the date, time and

place of any public hearing because hearings are occasionally rescheduled.Order Initiating Proposed RulemakingNotice of Proposed RulemakingCase No. 17-000xx-UT Page 3 of 11

10.

a hearing should contact Ms. Kathleen

commencement of the hearing.

11. Commission Rule 1.2.3.7(B)

Any person with a disability requiring special assistance in order to participate in

Segura at 827-4501 at least 48 hours prior to the

("Ex Parte Communications") draws a distinction

applicable to rulemaking proceedings between communications occurring before the record has

been closed and communications occurring after the record has been closed. It defines only the

latter as "ex parte communications." In order to assure compliance with 1.2.3.7(B) NMAC, the

Commission should set a date on which it will consider the record to be closed. The

Commission finds such date should be fourteen days (14) after the date of the public hearing

(November 29, 2017 - date of record closure). The setting of that record closure date will permit

Commissioners and Commission Counsel to conduct follow-up discussions with parties who

have submitted initial or response comments to the Commission’s proposed rules or responses to

any bench requests. However, this action should not be interpreted as extending the time during

which parties may file comments or response comments, or as allowing the filing of other types

of documents in this case.

Copies of this Notice should be sent to all persons on the attached Certificate of12.

Service.

13. Additional Notice to "provide to the public" notice of this rulemaking shall

comport with the 2017 amendments to the State Rules Act, Sections 14-4-1 etseq. NMSA 1978.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

A. The Proposed Amendments to the IRP Rule, attached to this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking as Exhibit 1, is proposed for adoption as provided by this Notice.

Order Initiating Proposed RulemakingNotice of Proposed RulemakingCase No. 17-000xx-UT Page 4 of 11

B. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, attached hereto as Exhibit 2 constitutes due

and lawful notice to all potentially interested persons.

C. Any person wishing to comment on the Proposed Amendments to the IRP Rule

may do so by submitting written comments no later than October 18, 2017. Any person wishing

to respond to comments may do so by submitting written response comments no later than

November 1, 2017. Comments suggesting changes to the Proposed Amendments to the IRP Rule

shall state and discuss the particular reasons for the suggested changes and shall include all

specific language necessary or appropriate to effectuate the changes being suggested. Specific

proposed language changes to the Proposed Amendments to the IRP Rule shall be provided in a

form consistent with that of the Proposed Amendments to the IRP Rule. Commenters’ deletions

shall be indicated by striking through the language to be deleted, and commenters’ additions

shall be underlined. The staff of the Commission’s Utility Division shall file comments as

provided in this paragraph.

D. All pleadings, including comments, shall bear the above caption and case number

of this matter and shall be filed with the Commission’s Records Division, at either of the

addresses set forth below:

Melanie Sandoval for hand deliveryNMPRC Records Management Bureau1120 Paseo de PeraltaSanta Fe, New Mexico 87501orNMPRC Records Management BureauPO Box 1269Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-1269

E. A public hearing on the Proposed Amendment to the IRP Rule, to be presided

over by the Commission or its designee, to be appointed by subsequent single signature order of

Order Initiating Proposed RulemakingNotice of Proposed RulemakingCase No. 17-000xx-UT Page 5 of 11

the Commission, shall be held beginning at 2:00 p.m. on November 15, 2017, at the offices of

the Commission, at the following location:

4th Floor Hearing Room1120 Paseo de PeraltaSanta Fe, New Mexico 87501Tel. 505-827-4501

The hearing will be held in order to receive oral comments only by those persons who did

not f’de written comments or responses in any capacity. Because commenters are afforded the

opportunity to submit written comments and written responses to the Commission, any

individual who wants to provide oral comments shall be limited to five minutes to express

those comments, subject to the Commission’s discretion. The Commission may also

determine that a spokesperson be designated to speak on behalf of an organization, a group, or a

group of individuals that shares the same message or seeks the same goals, in order to maximize

the efficiency of the public comment hearing. No testimony or other evidence will be taken at

the hearing as this is a rulemaking proceeding.

F. Commission Rule 1.2.3.7(B) NMAC (Ex Parte Communications) draws a

distinction applicable to rulemaking proceedings between communications occurring before the

record has been closed and communications occurring after the record has been closed. It

defines only the latter as "ex parte communications." In order to ensure compliance with Rule

1.2.3.7(B) NMAC, the Commission should set a date on which it will consider the record to be

closed. The Commission finds that date shall be fourteen (14) days following the November 15,

2017, Public Hearing, that is November 29, 2017. The setting of that record closure date will

permit Commissioners and Commission counsel to conduct follow-up discussions with parties

who have submitted initial or response comments to the Commission’s Proposed Amendments to

the IRP Rule or responses to any bench requests. However, this action should not be interpreted

Order Initiating Proposed RulemakingNotice of Proposed RulemakingCase No. 17-000xx-UT Page 6 ofll

as extending the time during which parties may file comments or response comments, or as

allowing the filing of other types of documents in this case.

G. Interested persons should contact the Commission to confirm the date, time, and

place of any public hearing, because hearings may need to be rescheduled to another room in the

same building. Any person with a disability requiring special assistance in order to participate in

the hearing should contact Ms. Kathleen Segura at (505) 827-4501 at least 48 hours prior to the

commencement of the heating.

H. At least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing date, this Order, including Exhibit 1,

shall be mailed to all persons who have made a written request for advance notice.

I. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Exhibit 2, shall be published without Exhibit

1 in at least two newspapers of general circulation in New Mexico and in the NEW MEXICO

REGISTER. Affidavits attesting to the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as

described above shall be filed in this docket.

J. Copies of this Order, including Exhibit 1, shall be e-mailed to all persons listed on

the attached Certificate of Service if their e-mail addresses are known, and if not known, mailed

to such persons via regular mail.

K. Copies of any forthcoming final order adopting a new rule shall be mailed, along

with copies of the new rule, to all persons and entities appearing on the Certificate of Service as

it exists at the time of issuance of the final order in this docket, to all commenters in this case,

and to all individuals requesting such copies.

L. Additional Notice to "provide to the public" notice of this rulemaking shall

comport with the 2017 amendments to the State Rules Act, Sections 14-4-1 etseq. NMSA 1978.

M. This Notice and Order is effective immediately.

Order Initiating Proposed RulemakingNotice of Proposed RulemakingCase No. 17-000xx-UT Page 7 of 11

ISSUED under the Seal of the Commission at Santa Fe, New Mexico, this 9th day of

August, 2017.

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

CYNTHIA HALL, VICE CHAIR

VALERIE ESPINOZA,

PATRICK H. LYONS, COMMgSSIONER

EXCUSED

LYNDA LOVEJOY, COMMISSIONER

Order Initiating Proposed RulemakingNotice of Proposed RulemakingCase No. 17-000xx-UT Page 8 of 11

TITLE 17CHAPTER 7PART 3

EXHIBIT 1PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UTILITY SERVICESENERGY CONSERVATIONINTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANS FOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES

17.7.3.12 COMMISSION REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE AND ACTION:A. Compliance Review. The commission will review the utility’s proposed IRP for compliance with

the procedures and objectives set foffh herein. The commission may accept the proposed IRP as compliant with thisrule without a hearing, unless a protest is filed that demonstrates to the commission’s reasonable satisfaction that ahearing is necessary. Protests must be filed within thirty (30) days of the filing of the proposed IRP. If thecommission has not acted within forty-five (45) days after the filing of the proposed IRP, that IRP is deemedaccepted as compliant with this rule. If the commission determines the proposed IRP does not comply with therequirements of this rule, the commission will identify the deficiencies and return it to the utility with instructionsfor re-filing.

[17.7.3.12 NMAC - N, 4-16-07]

Order Initiating Proposed RulemakingNotice of Proposed RulemakingCase No. 17-000xx-UT Page 9 of 11

EXItIBIT 2NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (NMPRC or Commission) gives notice of its proposed adoption ofamendment to Rule 17.7.3 NMAC pertaining to Integrated Resource Planning ("IRP") regulated by the Commissionpursuant to the Efficient Use of Energy Act (EUEA), NMSA § 62-17-1 et seq Summary of the full text of theproposed rule and short explanation of purpose: The amendment would delete section 17.7.3.12..B NMACpertaining to the use of the IRPs by utilities in subsequent resource acquisition proceedings in order to comply with§ 62-17-10 of the EUEA. Copies of the Order Initiating Proposed Rulemaking containing the full text of theproposed rule, as well as additional information and filing instructions, may be downloaded from the ProposedRulemaking section of the Commission’s website at http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us under Case No. 17-00198-UT orby calling the Commission’s Records Management Bureau at (505) 827-6968.

Written Initial Comments and written Response Comments shall be filed by the deadlines below with theCommission’s Records Management Bureau at P.O. Box 1269, Santa Fe, NM 87504- 1269 or by hand delivery tothe NMPRC Records Management Bureau at 1120 Paseo de Peralta, Room 406, Santa Fe, NM 87501 as follows:Written Initial Comments not later than October 18, 2017, and written Response Comments not later than November1, 2017. Comments shall refer to Case No. 17-00198-UT. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the commissionmay permit or request additional filed written comments, due no later than the date of record closure.

A public hearing will be held on November 15, 2017, beginning at 2:00 p.m. at the offices of the Commissionlocated in the 4th Floor Hearing Room of the old PERA Building, at 1120 Paseo de Peralta, in Santa Fe. Thepurpose of the hearing is to receive oral comments. Because commenters are afforded the opportunity to submitwritten comments and written responses to the Commission, any individual who wants to provide oral commentsshah be limited to five minutes to express those comments, subject to the Commission’s discretion. TheCommission may also determine that a spokesperson be designated to speak on behalf of an organization, a group,or a group of individuals that shares the same message or seeks the same goals, in order to maximize the efficiencyof the public comment hearing. No testimony or other evidence will be taken at the hearing as this is a rulemakingproceeding.

The record of this case will close fourteen (14) days after the public hearing held on November 15, 2017 (date ofrecord closure is November 29, 2017).

Interested persons should contact the Commission to confirm the date, time, and place of this public hearing becausehearings are occasionally rescheduled. If you are an individual with a disability and you require assistance or anauxiliary aid (such as a sign language interpreter) to participate in any aspect of this process, please contact Ms.Kathleen Segura at (505) 827-4501 at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of the heating.

Statutory Authority: New Mexico Constitution, Article XI, Sec. 2; NMSA 1978, §8-8-4(B)(10); the Efficient Useof Energy Act (EUEA), NMSA § 62-17-1 et seq.

Order Initiating Proposed RulemakingNotice of Proposed RulemaldngCase No. 17-000xx-UT Page 10 of 10

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTSTO THE INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNINGRULES 17.7.3 NMAC

)))))

Case No. 17-00198-UT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order Initiating

Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, issued on August 9, 2017, was

sent on August 9, 2017 as indicated below, to the following:

Via Email to:Adam BickfordAdrian J. RodriguezAlicia ArmijoAllen DownsAmanda AldersonAmanda EdwardsAmy ShelhamerAnastasia StevensAndrea CraneAndrew HarrigerAnthony SisnerosAnthony TrujilloAmulfo CastanedaAthena ChristodoulouBenjamin LeybaBenjamin PhillipsBen LoweBobbie J. CollinsBradford Borman-PRCBrian J. HaverlyBriana TrujilloBruce ThroneCarla SonntagCarey SalazCasey Settles

navoAdrian.rodriguez@epelectric.com;Aarmiio@nma~.Rov;ecomaxac@lifeis~ood2.com;aalderson@consultbai.com;AEdwards@lrrc.com;ashelhamer@courtne¥1awfirm.com;ast@keleher-law.com;Ctcolumbia@aol.com;akharri~er@sawvel.com;Anthony.Sisneros@state.nm.us;ait@l~knet.com;acastaneda @cit¥ofa nthonynm.com;Athena.solpowernm @gmail.com;blevba t~noraelectric.org;Ben.phillips@pnmresources.com;Ben.lowe(~alevo.com;BCollins@lrrc.com;Bradford.borman@state.nm,us;bih@keleher-law.com;BrianaG.Truiillo@state.nm.us;bthroneatt¥@newmexico.com;Carla@nmusa.org;Care¥.salaz@pnmresources.com;Case¥.Settles@xcelenergv.com;

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 1

Charles F. NobleCharles GunterCharles PinsonCharles R. MooreCharles V. GarciaCholla Khoury, Esq.Chris KingChris MartinezChristine WrightClifford K. HoClyde F. WorthenCurtis HutchesonCydney BeadlesDahl HarrisDan NajjarDana S. HardyDaniel A. NajjarDave EfrossDavid AultDavid HinksonDavid LinkDavid SpradlinDavid Van WinkleDebrea TerwilligerDon HancockDoug GegaxDouglas HoweElaine HeltmanElisha.Leyba-TerceroEva TaylorEvan D. EvansFrank NovachekGary AlsupGary HurseGary RinkerGerard OrtizGermaine ChappelleGlenda MurphyGrieta GilchristHal Grieg

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 2

Noble.ccae@~mail.com;Charles.Gunter@state.nm.us;cpinson@cvecooo.or~;cmoore@navopacher.org;cgarcia@cuddymccarthy.com;Ckhoury@nma~.~ov;chris king@siemens.com;chrism@col-coop.com;cwri~ht2 @solarcitv.com;ckho@sandia.gov;cfw@keleher-law.com;Curtis.Hutcheson@epelectric.com;Cydney.Beadles@state.nm.us;Dahlharris@hotmail.com;vnaiiar@aol.com;dhardy@hinklelawfirm.com;vnaiiar@aol.com;Dave.Effross@westernresources.or~;David.Ault@state.nm.us;David.hinkson@epelectric.com;dlink@raton~as.com;spradlin @sorin~ercooD.com;david0)vw77.com;dterwilliger@wbklaw.com;sricdon@earthlink.net;dge~ax@nmsu.edu;Doug.howe@dhaconsulting.us;E H e Itm a n @ n mag.Rov;Elisha.leyba-Tercero@state.nm.us;Evataylor@ca bo.~ov;Evan.d.eva ns@xcelenerlw.com;Fra nk.Novachek@xcelenergy.com;alsuDlaw@Dlateautel.net;~hurse@Icecnet.com;grinker@swec-coop.orgGerard.ortiz@pnmresources.com;~ermaine.chappelle@gknet.com;G murphy@westernresources.or~;GRilchrist@ rm ifirm.com;hgrieR@ olateautel.net;

Heidi PittsHoward GellerJack SidlerJames D. AlbrightJames DauphinaisJames R. DittmerJames SchichtlJane YeeJason BurwenJason MarksJeff PollockJeffrey FornaciariJeffrey H. AlbrightJeffrey L. FornaciariJennifer HallJerry W. PartinJessica NanceJill TauberJim DittrnerJimmy CappsJoan DrakeJody Kyler CohnJoe HerzJohn BoydJohn ReynoldsJon HawkinsJon WellinghoffJoseph HerreraJoseph YarJoshua L. SmithJudith AmerJuli GetchellJulie ParkJustin LeskyKatie Richardson, Ph.D.Katherine ColemanKelly CrandallKeven GroenewoldKevin AuerbacherKevin Higgins

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 3

Heidi.pitts@state.nm.us;hgeller@swener~v.orR;Jack.Sidler@state.nm.us;ialbril~ht@wbklaw.com;idauphinais@consultbai.com;idittmer@ utilitech.net;James.Schichtl@epelectric.com;Jyee@cabq.Rov;j.burwen@enerRvstora~e.orR;lawoffice@iasonmarks.com;icp@ipollockinc.com;jfornacia ri@hinklelawfirm.com;JAlbril~ht@Irrc.com;ifornaciari@hinklelawfirm.com;Jhall@mstlaw.com;partin~@rcec.coop;JNance@Irrc.com;"t~uber@earthiustice.orR;Jdittmer@utilitech.net;jca Dps@secDower.com;jdrake@modrall.com;Jkylercohn@ BKLlawfirm.com;Jaherz@sawvel.com;jwb@fbdlaw.com;John.Reynolds@state.nm.us;Jon.hawkins@pnm.com;ion.wellin~hoff@stoel.com;iherrera @socorroelectric.com;jyar@nma~.~ov;jsmith.watsonlawlc@gmail.com;Judith.Amer@state.nm.us;j~etchell@solarcity.com;julie.park@state.nm.us;jlesky@leskylawoffice.com;Katie Richardson@ Heinrich.Senate.Govkatie.colema n @tklaw.com;kcrandall@ kfwlaw.com;Kgroenewold@nmelectric.coop;ka uerbacher@solarcity.com;Khi~ins@ener~vstrat.com;

Kim LegartKurt BoehmKurt WihlKyle J. SmithLance AdkinsLaura E. Sanchez-RivetLeslie M. PadillaLes MontoyaLinda HudginsLisa HickeyLisa V. PerryLizbeth EllisLoretta BacaLoretta MartinezLorenzo NietoLuis ReyesMaj. Andrew J. UnsickerMarcia DriggersMariel NanasiMario ContrerasMario RomeroMark FentonMark GaiserMatthew CollinsMegan A. O’ReillyMelissa TrevinoMerde Lee SoulesMichael I. GarciaMichael McElrathMichael SmithMilo ChavezNancy BumsNancy LongNann M. WinterNatalie CepakNicole V. StrauserNikki JosephNoah LongNoel John SchaeferPatricia Cardona

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 4

Kim.Legart@Rmail.com;Kboehm@ BKLlawfirm.com;kw@keleher-law.com;k¥1e.i.smith124.civ@mail.mil;lance@fecnm.or~;nanc¥.burns@epelectric.com;Ipadilla @dwmrlaw.com;LMontoya@morasanmiguel.coop;linda.l.hudgins@xcelenerl~v.com;lisahickey@newlawgroup.com;LPerr¥@rqn.com;lellis@nmsu.edu;LBaca@lrrc.com;I ma rtinez@ nma~.~ov;Lorenzo:nieto@epelectric.com;Ireves@kitca rson.com;Andrew.Unsicker@us.af.mil;marcvd @las-cruces.or~;Mariel@seedsbeneaththesnow.com;Mario.a.contreras@xcelener~v.com;marior@ote-coop.com;Mark.fenton@pnmresources.com;Mark.Gaiser@state.nm.us;mcollins@cnmec.cool~arcresearchandanalysis@~mail.com;Melissa Trevino@oxy.com;mlsoules@ hotmail.com;MikGarcia @bernco.l~ov;Michael McEIrath@fmi.com;michaelc.smith@state.nm.us;Milo.Chavez@state.nm.us;Nancy.bu rns@epelectric.com;email@longkomer.com;nwinter@stelzneriaw.com;Natalie.Cepak.2@us.af.mil;nvstrauser@tecoener~v.com;Nioseph@cabcl.l~ov;nlonl~@nrdc.orl~;schaefno@l~mail.com;patriciacardona24@yahoo.com;

Patricia GriegoPerry RobinsonPeter AuhPeter GouldPhillip OldhamRalph CavanaghRamona BlaberRandall WoolridgeRandy ChildressRaymond HeymanRaymond L. GiffordRebecca CarterRichard AlvidrezRichard C. MertzRick GilliamRobert CastilloRobert ClarkRobert GarzaRobin GomezRocky BacchusRuth SakyaRyan JermanSandra Skogen-PRCSara GersenSarah BeckerShannon A. PardenSonya MaresStacey GoodwinStephen FogelSteve LuntSteven S. MichelSteven SchewebkeSteve W. ChrissSunny NixonThomas DommeThomas JerniganThomas ManningTom FigartTom SolomomTony A. Gurule

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 5

patricia.l~rieRo @epelectric.com;perry.robinson@ urenco.com;Pauh@abcwua.or~;pgouldlaw@~mail.com;phillip.oldha m @tklaw.com;rcavanah@nrdc.org;Ramona.blaber@sierraclub.org;irwoolrid~e@~mail.com;randy@childresslaw.com;rheyrnan@swlaw.com;rgifford @wbklaw.com;racarter~tecoener~v.com;ralvidrez@mstlaw.com;Rcmertz7@outlook.com;Rick@votesolar.org;rcastillo@cdec.coop;rclark@mstlaw.com;r~arza@las-cruces.or~;RGomez@LRRc.com;rockybacchus@~mail.com;ruth.m.sakva @xcelener~v.com;RyanJerman@pnmresources.com;Sandra.Skogen@state.nm.us;s~ersen@ea rthiustice.or~;Sarah.Becker@state.nm.us;Sparden@rmifirm.com;Sma res@hinklelawfirm.com;Stacey.goodwin@pnmresources.com;stephen.e.fogel@xcelenergy,com;stevel@dvec.org;Smichel~i~westernresources.org;Steven.schwebke@ pnmresources.com;Stephen.Chriss@WaI-Mart.com;Snixon@rodey.com;tdom meL-’6~tecoe ne rl~v.com;Thomas.Jerniga n.3@us.af.mil;cfrecleanener~y@yahoo.com;tomf@donaanacountv.or~;tasolomon6@gmail.com;TGurule@cabq.~ov;

Travis BlechaTravis RitchieVincent De CesareWilliam R. Babington, Jr.William DunkelWilliam SteeleWilliam TemplemanZoe E. LeesGayle L. Gouker

Travis. Blecha @state. nm.us;travis.ritchie@sierraclub.org;Vincent.decesare @state.nm.us;rbabington@las-cruces.org;willia mdunkel@consultant.com;wa.steele@hotmail.com;wtempleman@cmtisantafe.com;zel@modrall.com;ggouker@navopache.org;

Via U.S. Mail to:

Kathleen O’Dea, Esq.Jemez Mountains Electric CoopPO Box 6785Santa Fe, NM 87502

Michael M. Grant, Esq.Gallagher & Kennedy, PADuncan Valley Electric Coop2575 E. Camelback Rd.Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225

Mike Newell, Esq.Lea County Electric Coop, Inc.PO Drawer 1599Lovington, NM 88260

Gary Allsup, Esq.Southwestern Electric CoopPO Box 518Clayton, NM 88415

Wiggins, Williams & WigginsMora-San Miguel Electric Coop, Inc.Socorro Elec Coop, Inc.PO Box 1308Albuquerque, NM 87104

Dannelle J. Smith, Esq.Springer Electric Coop, Inc.PO Box 1811Las Vegas, NM 87701

Bret J. Slocum, Esq.Casey Wren, Esq.Dugongs Wren Mann & Romero,LLP.P.O. Box 1149Austin, TX 78767

S. Thomas Overstreet, Esq.Otero County Electric Coop, Inc.1011 New YorkAlamogordo, NM 88310

Kevin HigginsEnergy Strategies215 S. State Street, Suite 200Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 6

DATED this 9th day of August, 2017.

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

Kat~lt~n M. Seg~r’a~La~v-Cl~[k "~

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 7

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (NMPRC or Commission) gives notice of its proposed adoption of amendment to Rule 17.7.3 NMAC pertaining to Integrated Resource Planning (“IRP”) regulated by the Commission pursuant to the Efficient Use of Energy Act (EUEA), NMSA § 62-17-1 et seq., Summary of the full text of the proposed rule and short explanation of purpose: The amendment would delete Subsection B of Section 17.7.3.12 NMAC pertaining to the use of the IRPs by utilities in subsequent resource acquisition proceedings in order to comply with § 62-17-10 of the EUEA. Copies of the Order Initiating Proposed Rulemaking containing the full text of the proposed rule, as well as additional information and filing instructions, may be downloaded from the Proposed Rulemaking section of the Commission’s website at http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us under Case No. 17-00198-UT or by calling the Commission’s Records Management Bureau at (505) 827-6968. Written Initial Comments and written Response Comments shall be filed by the deadlines below with the Commission’s Records Management Bureau at P.O. Box 1269, Santa Fe, NM 87504-1269 or by hand delivery to the NMPRC Records Management Bureau at 1120 Paseo de Peralta, Room 406, Santa Fe, NM 87501 as follows: Written Initial Comments not later than October 18, 2017, and written Response Comments not later than November 1, 2017. Comments shall refer to Case No. 17-00198-UT. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the commission may permit or request additional filed written comments, due no later than the date of record closure. A public hearing will be held on November 15, 2017, beginning at 2:00 p.m. at the offices of the Commission located in the 4th Floor Hearing Room of the old PERA Building, at 1120 Paseo de Peralta, in Santa Fe. The purpose of the hearing is to receive oral comments. Because commenters are afforded the opportunity to submit written comments and written responses to the Commission, any individual who wants to provide oral comments shall be limited to five minutes to express those comments, subject to the Commission’s discretion. The Commission may also determine that a spokesperson be designated to speak on behalf of an organization, a group, or a group of individuals that shares the same message or seeks the same goals, in order to maximize the efficiency of the public comment hearing. No testimony or other evidence will be taken at the hearing as this is a rulemaking proceeding. The record of this case will close fourteen (14) days after the public hearing held on November 15, 2017 (date of record closure is November 29, 2017). Interested persons should contact the Commission to confirm the date, time, and place of this public hearing because hearings are occasionally rescheduled. If you are an individual with a disability and you require assistance or an auxiliary aid (such as a sign language interpreter) to participate in any aspect of this process, please contact Ms. Kathleen Segura at (505) 827-4501 at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of the hearing. Statutory Authority: New Mexico Constitution, Article XI, Sec. 2; NMSA 1978, §8-8-4(B)(10); the Efficient Use of Energy Act (EUEA), NMSA § 62-17-1 et seq.

17.7.3 NMAC 1

This is an amendment to 17.7.3 NMAC, Section 12 effective 01/30/2018. 17.7.3.12 COMMISSION REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE AND ACTION: [ A. Compliance Review.] The commission will review the utility’s proposed IRP for compliance with the procedures and objectives set forth herein. [The commission may accept the proposed IRP as compliant with this rule without a hearing, unless a protest is filed that demonstrates to the commission’s reasonable satisfaction that a hearing is necessary. Protests must be filed within 30 days of the filing of the proposed IRP.] Written public comments may be filed within 20 days of the utility’s filing of the proposed IRP in support or in opposition of the proposed IRP as filed. The utility shall file, within 40 days of the utility’s filing of the proposed IRP, a written response to all written public comments that were timely filed in support or in opposition, stating whether or not it will incorporate any of the written comments into its proposed IRP and state its reasons why or why not. The commission’s utility division staff shall review the utility’s proposed IRP as filed and shall consider the filed written public comments in support or in opposition and the utility’s written response and shall file a written recommendation to the commission within 60 days of utility’s filing as to whether or not the IRP complies with the procedures and objectives of this rule and whether or not it recommends that the commission accept the proposed IRP as filed. If the commission has not acted within [45] 90 days after the filing of the proposed IRP, that IRP is deemed accepted as compliant with this rule. If the commission determines the proposed IRP does not comply with the requirements of this rule, the commission will identify the deficiencies and return it to the utility with instructions for re-filing. [ B. Use in Resource Acquisition Proceedings. In a proceeding concerning a utility's request for a CCN for a new utility resource, or in other proceedings concerning a utility’s resource acquisition, the utility shall present evidence that the requested resource is consistent with the commission-accepted utility IRP unless material changes, as described in Section 17.7.3.10 of this rule, have occurred that would warrant a different utility course of action. Evidence that the resource is consistent with the IRP, and that there have not been material changes that would warrant a different course of action by the utility, will constitute prima facie evidence that the resource type, but not the particular resource being proposed, is required by the public convenience and necessity.] [17.7.3.12 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007; A, 8/29/2017; A, 01/30/2018]

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED )AMENDMENTS TO THE INTEGRATED )RESOURCE PLANNING RULES 1.7.7.3 )NMAC )

)

Case No. 17-00198-UT

ERRATA NOTICE TO ORDER

Pursuant to 1.2.2.37(G)(1) NMAC and 1.2.2.30 NMAC, the Commission gives notice

that the Order Initiating Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Order")

issued on August 9, 2017, should be corrected. On page 3, paragraph 6, the second and third

sentences should be revised as follows (deletions are strikethrough and revisions are underlined):

Interested persons shall file their written comments on the proposed rules no later than0~41-40~2-01-7 October 18, 2017. Any response comments shall be filed no later thanc~^~,~ 1 o ,~1 -~ November 1, 2017.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

A. The Order is corrected as provided above.

B. This Errata Notice is effective immediately.

C. A copy of this Errata Notice shall be served on all persons listed on the attached

certificate of service via email.

ISSUED at Santa Fe, New Mexico, this.~, dt~y of August,2017.

NEW ~~ P~ REGULATION COMMISSION

COMMONER

Page I of 117-00199-UTErrata Notice

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTSTO THE INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNINGRULES 17.7.3 NMAC

)))))

Case No. 17-00198-UT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Errata Notice to

Order, issued on August 30, 2017, was sent on August 30, 2017 as indicated below, to the

following:

Via Email to:Adam BickfordAdrian J. RodriguezAlicia ArmijoAllen DownsAmanda AldersonAmanda EdwardsAmy ShelhamerAnastasia StevensAndrea CraneAndrew HarrigerAnthony SisnerosAnthony TrujilloAmulfo CastanedaAthena ChristodoulouBenjamin LeybaBenjamin PhillipsBen LoweBobbie J. CollinsBradford Borman-PP, CBrian J. HaverlyBdana TrujilloBruce ThroneCarla SonntagCarey SalazCasey Settles

navoAdrian.rodriguez@epelectric.com;Aarmiio@nmag.gov;ecomaxac@lifeisgood2.com;aalderson@consultbai.com;AEdwards@lrrc.com;ashelhamer@courtneylawfirm.com;ast@keleher-law.com;Ctcolumbia@aol.com;akharriger@sawvel.com;Anthony.Sisneros@state.nm.us;ajt@~knet.com;acastaneda@cityofanthonynm.com;Athena.solpowernm @~mail.com;blevba @noraelectric.or~;Ben.phillips@pnmresources.com;Be n. Iowe @a levo.com;BCollins@lrrc.com;Bradford.borman@state.nm.us;bih@keleher-law.com;BrianaG.Truiillo@state.nm.us;bthroneatty@newmexico.com;Carla@nmusa.or~;Carey.salaz@pnmresources.com;Casey.Settles@xcelenergy.com;

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 1

Charles F. NobleCharles GunterCharles PinsonCharles R. MooreCharles V. GarciaCholla Khoury, Esq.Chris KingChris MartinezChristine WrightClifford K. HoClyde F. WorthenCurtis HutchesonCydney BeadlesDahl HarrisDan NajjarDana S. HardyDaniel A. NajjarDave EfrossDavid AultDavid HinksonDavid LinkDavid SpradlinDavid Van WinkleDebrea TerwilligerDon HancockDoug GegaxDouglas HoweElaine HeRmanElisha.Leyba-TerceroEva TaylorEvan D. EvansFrank NovachekGary AlsupGary HurseGary RinkerGerard OrtizGermaine ChappelleGlenda MurphyGrieta GilchristHal Grieg

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 2

Noble.ccae@l~mail.com;Charles.Gunter@state.nm.us~cpinson@cvecooo.orR;cmoore@navopacher.org;cgarcia @cuddymccarth¥.com;Ckhourv@nmal~.l~ov;chris king@siemens.corn;chrism@col-coop.corn;cwril~ht2 @solarcitv.com;ckho@sandia.gov;cfw@keleher-law.com;Curtis.Hutcheson @epelectric.com;Cyd ne¥.Beadles@state.nm.us;Dahlha rris@hotmail.com;vnaiiar@aol.com;dhard¥@hinklelawfirm.com;vnaiiar@aol.com;Dave. Effross @ we ste rn re so u rces. o rg;David.Ault@state.nm.us;David.hinkson@epelectric.com;dlink@ratongas.com;spradlin@springercoop.com;david@vw77.com;dterwilliger@wbklaw.com;sricdon @earthlink.net;dl~el~ax@nmsu.edu;Dou~.howe@dhaconsultinl~.us;EHeltman@nmal~.l~ov;Elisha.leyba-Tercero@state.nm.us;Evatavlor@cab(~.Rov;Eva n.d.evans@xcelenerg¥.com;Frank.Novachek@xcelenerg¥.com;alsul~law@l~lateautel.net;ghurse@lcecnet.com;grinker@swec-coop.or~Gerard.ortiz@pnmresources.com;germaine.chappelle@gknet.com;Gmurph¥(~westernresources.org;G~ilchrist@rmifirm.com;h~rie~@Dlateautel.net;

Heidi PittsHoward GellerJack SidlerJames D. AlbrightJames DauphinaisJames R. DittmerJames SchichtlJane YeeJason BurwenJason MarksJeff PollockJeffrey FomaciariJeffrey H. AlbrightJeffrey L. FomaciariJennifer HallJerry W. PartinJessica NanceJill TauberJim DittmerJimmy CappsJoan DrakeJody Kyler CohnJoe HerzJohn BoydJohn ReynoldsJon HawkinsJon WellinghoffJoseph HerreraJoseph YarJoshua L. SmithJudith AmerJuli GetchellJulie ParkJustin LeskyKatie Richardson, Ph.D.Katherine ColemanKelly CrandallKeven GroenewoldKevin AuerbacherKevin Higgins

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 3

Heidi.pitts@state.nm.us;hgeller@swenerRv.orR;Jack.Sidler@state.nm.us;ialbriRht@wbklaw.com;jdauphinais@consultbai.com;jdittmer@utilitech.net;James.Schichtl@epelectric.com;Jvee@cabcI.ROV;L.burwen @enerRvstoraRe.orR;lawoffice@iasonmarks.com;icp@ipollockinc.com;ifornaciari@ hinklelawfirm.com;JAIbright@lrrc.com;jfornaciari@hinklelawfirm.com;Jhall(Dmstlaw.com;oartinR@rcec.coop;JNance@lrrc.com;jtauber@earthiustice.orR;Jdittmer@utilitech.net;jcapps@secpower.com;jdrake@modrall.com;Jkvlercohn@ BKLlawfirm.com;Jaherz@sawvel.com;iwb@fbdlaw.com;John.Reynolds@state.nm.us;Jon.hawkins@pnm.com;jon.wellinghoff@stoel.com;iherrera @socorroelectric.com;jyar@nmaR.Rov;ismith.watsonlawlc@Rmail.com;Judith.Amert~state.nm.us;iRetchell@solarcitv.com;julie.park@state.nm.us;ileskv@leskylawoffice.com;Katie Richardson@Heinrich.Senate.Govkatie.coleman@tklaw.com;kcrandall@ kfwlaw.com;Kgroenewold@nmelectric.coop;ka ue rbacher @sola rcity.com;KhiRRins@enerRvstrat.com;

Kim LegartKurt BoehmKurt WihlKyle J. SmithLance AdkinsLaura E. Sanchez-RivetLeslie M. PadillaLes MontoyaLinda HudginsLisa HickeyLisa V. PerryLizbeth EllisLoretta BacaLoretta MartinezLorenzo NietoLuis ReyesMaj. Andrew J. UnsickerMarcia DriggersMariel NanasiMario ContrerasMario RomeroMark FentonMark GaiserMatthew CollinsMegan A. O’ReillyMelissa TrevinoMerrie Lee SoulesMichael I. GarciaMichael McElrathMichael SmithMilo ChavezNancy BumsNann M. WinterNatalie CepakNicole V. StrauserNikki JosephNoah LongNoel John SchaeferPatricia CardonaPatricia Griego

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 4

Kim.Legart@~mail.com;Kboehm @BKLlawfirm.com;kw@keleher-law.com;kyle.i.smith124.civ@mail.mil;lance@fecnm.org;nancy.burns@epelectric.com;Ipadilla @dwm rlaw.com;LMontoya @morasanmiguel.coop;linda.l.hudgins@xcelener~v.com;lisahicke¥@newlawgroup.com;LPerry@rqn.com;lellis@nmsu.edu;LBaca@lrrc.com;I ma rtinez@ n ma~.~ov;Lorenzo.nieto@epelectric.com;I reves@kitcarson.com;Andrew.Unsicker@us.af.mil;marcvd @las-cruces.or~;Mariel@seedsbeneaththesnow.com;Mario.a.contreras@xcelener~v.com;marior@ote-coop.com;Mark.fenton@pnmresources.com;Mark.Gaiser@state.nm.us;mcollins@cnmec.coop;arcresearchandanalysis@~mail.com;Melissa Trevino@ox¥.com;mlsoules@hotmail.com;M i kG a rcia @ be rnco.gov;Michael McEIrath@fmi.com;michaelc.smith@state.nm.us;Milo.Chavez@state.nm.us;Na nc¥.burns@epelectric.com;nwinter@stelznerlaw.com;Natalie.Cepak.2@us.af.mil;nvstrauser@tecoener~v.com;Nioseph@cabcl.~OV;nlon~@nrdc.or~;schaefno@~mail.com;patriciacardona24@¥ahoo.com;oatricia.~rie~o@eoelectric.com;

Perry RobinsonPeter AuhPeter GouldPhillip OldhamRalph CavanaghRamona BlaberRandall WoolridgeRandy ChildressRaymond HeymanRaymond L. GiffordRebecca CarterRichard AlvidrezRichard C. MertzRick GilliamRobert CastilloRobert ClarkRobert GarzaRobin GomezRocky BacchusRuth SakyaRyan JermanSandra Skogen-PRCSara GersenSarah BeckerShannon A. PardenSonya MaresStacey GoodwinStephen FogelSteve LuntSteven S. MichelSteven SchewebkeSteve W. ChrissSunny NixonThomas DommeThomas JemiganThomas ManningTom FigartTom SolomomTony A. GuruleTravis Blecha

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 5

perry.robinson@urenco.com;Pauh@abcwua.or~;o~ouldlaw@~mail.com;philli~).oldham (~tklaw.com;rcavanah@nrdc.or~;Ramona.blaber@sierraclub.or~;irwoolrid~e@~mail.com;randy@childresslaw.com;rheyman@swlaw.com;rgifford @wbklaw.com;racarter@tecoener~v.com;ralvid rez@mstlaw.com;Rcmertz7@outlook.com;Rick@votesolar.orl~;rcastillo@cdec.coop;rclark@mstlaw.com;r~arza @las-cruces.orl~;RGomez@LRRc.com;rockybacchus@~mail.com;ruth.m.sakya@xcelenergy.com;Rya n.Jerman @pnmresources.com;Sandra.Skol~en@state.nm.us;sgersen@earthiustice.orl~;Sarah.Becker@state.nm.us;Sparden@rmjfirm.com;Smares@ hinklelawfirm.com;Stacev.l~oodwin@13nmresources.com;stephen.e.fogel@xcelener~v.com;stevel@dvec.or~;Smichel@westernresources.org;Steven.schwebke@pnmresources.com;Stephen.Chriss@Wal-Mart.com;Snixon@rode¥.com;tdomme@tecoener~v.com;Thomas.Jernigan.3 @us.af.mil;cfrecleanenerl~v@vahoo.com;tomf@donaa nacountv.orl~;tasolomon6@~mail.com;TGurule@cabQ.~ov;Travis.Blecha@state.nm.us;

Travis RitchieVincent De CesareWilliam R. Babington, Jr.William DunkelWilliam SteeleWilliam TemplemanZoe E. LeesGayle L. Gouker

travis.ritchie@sierraclub.org;Vincent.decesare@state.nm.us;rbabinRton@las-cruces.or~;williamdunkel@consultant.com;wa.steele@hotmail.com;wtemplema n@cmtisantafe.com;zel@modrall.com;ggouker@navopache.org;

Via U.S. Mail to:

Kathleen O’Dea, Esq.Jemez Mountains Electric CoopPO Box 6785Santa Fe, NM 87502

Michael M. Grant, Esq.Gallagher & Kennedy, PADuncan Valley Electric Coop2575 E. Camelback Rd.Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225

Mike Newell, Esq.Lea County Electric Coop, Inc.PO Drawer 1599Lovington, NM 88260

Gary Allsup, Esq.Southwestern Electric CoopPO Box 518Clayton, NM 88415

Wiggins, Williams & WigginsMora-San Miguel Electric Coop, Inc.Socorro Elec Coop, Inc.PO Box 1308Albuquerque, NM 87104

Dannelle J. Smith, Esq.Springer Electric Coop, Inc.PO Box 1811Las Vegas, NM 87701

Bret J. Slocum, Esq.Casey Wren, Esq.Dugongs Wren Mann & Romero,LLP.P.O. Box 1149Austin, TX 78767

S. Thomas Overstreet, Esq.Otero County Electric Coop, Inc.1011 New YorkAlamogordo, NM 88310

Kevin HigginsEnergy Strategies215 S. State Street, Suite 200Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 6

DATED this 30th day of August, 2017.

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

I~ath"~en M. Seg~ra, Law C~k

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 7

BEFORE THE PUBLIC NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSEDAMENDMENTS TO THE INTEGRATEDRESOURCE PLANNING RULES 17.7.3 NMAC

)))

Case No. 17-00198-UT

CITIZENS FOR FAIR RATES AND THE ENVIRONMENT’S

RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

COMES NOW, Citizens for Fair Rates and the Environment ("CFRE") and offers the

following comments and suggestions in response to the Commission’s Order Initiating Proposed

Rule Making and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Order").

CFRE notes that the Commission’s concern appears to be the need for greater flexibility in

resource procurement cases noting that changing conditions might warrant deviation from an

Integrated Resource "Plan." CFRE fully supports the need for flexibility to address changes in

conditions, but we are concerned that the approach proposed by the Commission would undermine

the Integrated Resource ("IR") planning process.

CFRE does not see any inherent contradiction in Section 12 (B) and Section 62-17-10 of

the EUEA. The IR planning process and the IRP constitute a "planning tool." As with any tool,

this tool is utilized toward completion of actions or objectives. As noted, the IRP is a plan, we

hope, a thoroughly evaluated plan, and the IRP rules already allow for deviation from that plan

when there are material changes that necessitate deviation from that plan. In CFRE’s view the

reason that designation of a resource type in an IRP is considered prima facie evidence is because

of the extensive process involved in obtaining a Commission approved IRP.

The IR planning process is designed to engage stakeholders in a substantive and

meaningful process evaluating a utility’s future resource needs and the best ways to fill those

needs. This "public advisory process" is mandated by § 62-17-10 and by 17.7.3.9.H NMAC. The

thoroughness of the process is additionally ensured by the opportunity for challenges to the

Integrated Resource Plans ("IRPs") by means of protests and support through comments, and if

the Commission finds it warranted, the Commission itself may initiate a case in order to review

the IR planning process and the IRP. Ultimately, the Commission must accept or not accept an

IRP. After these comprehensive processes, and if an Integrated Resource Plan is accepted by the

Commission, deviation should not be taken lightly. CFRE contends 17.7.3.12 B., as written,

reinforces the stakeholder process. Thus, this section of the IRP rule should remain in force.

However, as the Commission pointed out, an IRP is a "plan." Changes in conditions or

circumstances may warrant or necessitate deviation from that "plan." CFRE fully agrees.

Consequently, we turn our attention to the portion of the paragraph addressed by the Order wherein

it states "... unless material changes, as described in Section 17.7.3.10 of this rule, have occurred

that would warrant a different utility course of action."

CFRE asserts that the Commission’s expressed concern should be addressed by a revision

of Section 17.7.3.10 which is (in its current form) as follows:

17.7.3.10 OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY OF MATERIAL CHANGES ANDUPDATE ACTION PLAN: The utility shall promptly notify the commission andparticipants of material events that would have the effect of changing the results of theutility’s IRP had those events been recognized when the IRP was developed. As part ofthis notification, the utility shall explain how this event(s) has changed the action plan.[17.7.3.10 NMAC - N, 4-16-07]

2

It is CFRE’s contention that the Commission can address its concern by amending the

overly restrictive Section 17.7.3.10 to be more inclusive. We assert that other parties should also

be readily able to notify the Commission of material changes that would warrant an update to an

action plan or that would require consideration of deviation from a Commission approved IRP.

Therefore, CFRE suggests the following changes as per ¶ C. of the Order.

changes are underlined in the following paragraph:

Requested

17.7.3.12 B. Use in Resource Acquisition Proceedings. In a proceeding concerning autility’s request for a CCN for a new utility resource, or in other proceedings concerning autility’s resource acquisition, the utility shall present evidence that the requested resourceis consistent with the commission-accepted utility IRP unless material changes, asdescribed in Sections 17.7.3.10 A. and B. of this rule, have occurred that would warrant adifferent utility course of action. Evidence that the resource is consistent with the IRP,and that there have not been material changes that would warrant a different course ofaction by the utility, will constitute prima facie evidence that the resource type, but notthe particular resource being proposed, is required by the public convenience andnecessity.

17.7.3.10 OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY OF MATERIAL CHANGES ANDUPDATE ACTION PLAN:

A.~. The utility shall promptly notify the commission and participants of material eventsthat would have the effect of changing the results of the utility’s IRP had those eventsbeen recognized when the IRP was developed. As part of this notification, the utilityshall explain how this event(s) has changed the action plan.

B. Other parties may notify the commission and the parties of material events that wouldhave the effect of changing the results of the utility’s IRP had those events beenrecognized when the IRP was developed. As part of this notification, the parties shallinclude suggested changes to the utility’s action plan.

The above suggested approach is one avenue to gain flexibility that would reinforce the

stakeholder process instead of undermining it. CFRE points out that gaining flexibility as

described above would enable stakeholders to draw attention to material changes that a utility

company has financial incentive (or perhaps other motivations) to ignore. These material changes

could include, but would not be limited to, resource options that are currently more cost-effective.

Unfortunately, a utility company’s profit motive, all too often, seems to trump its responsibility to

look for the most cost-effective resource options for ratepayers. The above suggestion would help

to alleviate that concern while maintaining the integrity of the IR planning process.

Whether or not the Commission chooses to pursue something similar to this particular

suggestion, CFRE hopes that the Commission will not sacrifice the legislative intent of having

strong and enforceable stakeholder involvement in the IR planning process.

CFRE thanks the Commission for this opportunity to submit comments on this proposed

rule change.

Wherefore, for the reasons cited above, CFRE respectfully requests that the Commission

pursue alternatives, such as those suggested above, in order to gain flexibility, but CFRE

respectfully requests that the Commission not adopt the rule change as explored in Exhibit 1 to the

Order or any similar change that would undermine the legislative intent of the IRP process.

Respectfully submitted this 16~ day of October, 2017

Citizens for Fair Rates and the Environment

Thomas Manning, Direct& J406 S. Arizona St.Silver City, NM 88061

575-538-2123cffecleanenergy@yahoo.com

4

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTSTO THE INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNINGRULES 17.7.3 NMAC

))))

Case No. 17-00198-UT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing CITIZENS FOR

FAIR RATES AND THE ENVIRONMENT’S RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PROPOSED

RULEMAKING, issued on October 17, 2017 will be sent on October 18, 2017 as indicated below,

to the following:

Via Email to:Adam BickfordAdrian J. RodriguezAlicia ArmijoAllen DownsAmanda AldersonAmanda EdwardsAmy ShelhamerAnastasia StevensAndrea CraneAndrew HarrigerAnthony SisnerosAnthony TrujilloArnulfo CastanedaAthena ChristodoulouBenjamin LeybaBenjamin PhillipsBen LoweBobbie J. CollinsBradford Borman-PRCBrian J. HaverlyBriana TrujilloBruce ThroneCarla Sonntag

nav_____QAdrian.rodriRuez@epelectric.com;Aarmiio@nmaR.l~ov;e¢omaxac@lffeisgood2.com;aalderson@consultbai.com;AEdwards@lrrc.com;ashelhamer@courtneylawfirm,com;ast@keleher-law.com;Ctcolumbia@aol.com;akharri~er~sawvel.com;Anthony.Sisneros@state.nm.us;ajt@~kneLcom;acastaneda@cityofanthonynm.com;Athena.solpowernm @Rmail.com;blevba@noraelectric.or~;Ben.phillips@pnmresources.com;Ben.lowe@alevo.com;BCollins@lrrc.com;Bradford.borman@state.nm.us;bih@keleher-law.com;BrianaG.Truiillo@state.nm.us;bthroneatty@newmexico.com;Carla@nmusa.orR;

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 1

Carey SalazCasey SettlesCharles F. NobleCharles GunterCharles PinsonCharles R. MooreCharles V. GarciaCholla Khoury, Esq.Chris KingChris MartinezChristine WrightClifford K. HoClyde F. WorthenCurtis HutchesonCydney BeadlesDahl HarrisDan NajjarDana S. HardyDaniel A. NajjarDave EffossDavid AultDavid HinksonDavid LinkDavid SpradlinDavid Van WinkleDebrea TerwilligerDon HancockDoug GegaxDouglas HoweElaine HeltmanElisha.Leyba-TerceroEva TaylorEvan D. EvansFrank NovachekGary AlsupGary HurseGary RinkerGerard OrtizGermaine ChappelleGlenda Murphy

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 2

Carey.salaz@pnmresources.corn;Case¥.Settles@xcelener~v.com;Noble.ccae@Rmail.com;Charles.Gunter@state.nm.us;cpinson@cvecooD,orR;cmoore@,navopacher, org~c~arcia@cuddymccarth¥.corn;Ckhoury@nmaR.Rov;chris kinl~@siemens.corn;chrism @col-coop.com;cwriRht2@solarcitv.com;ckho@sandia.Rov;cfw@keleher-law.com;Curtis.Hutcheson@epelectric.com;Cydney.Beadles@state.nm.us;Dahlharris@hotmail.com;vnaiiar@aol.com;dhardy@hinklelawfirm.corn;vnaiiar@aol.com;Dave.Effross@westernresources.orR;David.Ault@state.nm.us;David.hinkson@epelectric.com;dlink@raton~as.com;spradlin@sprinRercoop.com;david@vw77.corn;dterwilliger@wbklaw.com;sricdon @earthlink.net;dReRax@nmsu.edu;DouR.howe@dhaconsultinR.us;EHeltman@nmaR.Rov;Elisha.leyba-Tercero@state.nrn.us;Evata¥1or@cabcI.ROV;Evan.d.evans@xcelenerRv.com;Frank.Novachek@xcelenergy.com;alsuplaw@plateautel.net;Rhurse@lcecnet.com;grinker@swec-coop.orgGer~rd.ortiz@onmresources.com:germaine.chapoelle@~knet.com;Gmurphy@westernresources.or~;

Grieta GilchristHal GriegHeidi PittsHoward GellerJack SidlerJames D. AlbrightJames DauphinaisJames R. DittmerJames SchiehtlJane YeeJason BurwenJason MarksJeff PollockJeffrey FornaciariJeffrey H. AlbrightJeffrey L. FornaciariJennifer HallJerry W. PartinJessica NanceJill TauberJim DittmerJimmy CappsJoan DrakeJody Kyler CohnJoe HerzJohn BoydJohn ReynoldsJon HawkinsJon WellinghoffJoseph HerreraJoseph YarJoshua L. SmithJudith AmerJuli GetchellJulie ParkJustin LeskyKatie Richardson, Ph.D.Katherine ColemanKelly CrandallKeven Groenewold

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 3

GRilchrist@rmifirm.com;hgriel~@l~lateautel.net;Heidi.pitts@state.nm.us;hgeller~swener~v.or~;Jack.Sidler@state.nm.us;ialbri~ht@wbklaw.com;idau~hinais@consultbai.corn;idittmer@utilitech.net;James.Schichtl@epelectric.com;Jyee@cab(~.~ov;j.burwen @enerRvstora~e.or~;lawoffice@iasonmarks.com ~icp@i~ollockinc.com;jfornaciari@hinklelawfirrn.com;JAIbriRht~lrrc.corn;ifornaciari@hinklelawfirm.com;Jhall@mstlaw.com;partinl~rcec.cool~;JNance@lrrc.com;itauber~earthiustice.or~;Jdittmer@utilitech.net;icaDl~s@secl~ower.corn;idrake@modrall.com;Jkylercohn@ BKLlawfirm.com;Jaherz@sawvel.corn;iwb@fbdlaw.com;John. Reynolds@state.nm. us;Jon.hawkins@pnm.com;jon.wellinRhoff@stoel.com;j herrera@socorroelectric.com;iyar@nmaR.Rov;ismith.watsonlawlc@Rmail.com;Judith.Amer@state.nm.us;iRetchell@solarcitv.com;iulie.l~ark@state.nm.us;ileskv@leskvlawoffice.com;Katie Richardson@Heinrich.Senate.Govkatie.coleman@tklaw.com;kcrandall@kfwlaw.com;KRroenewold @nmelectric.coop;

Kevin AuerbacherKevin HigginsKim LegartKurt BoehmKurt WihlKyle J. SmithLance AdkinsLaura E. Sanchez-RivetLeslie M. PadillaLes MontoyaLinda HudginsLisa HickeyLisa V. Perr~Lizbeth EllisLoretta BacaLoretta MartinezLorenzo NietoLuis ReyesMaj. Andrew J. UnsickerMarcia DriggersMariel NanasiMario ContrerasMario RomeroMark FentonMark GaiserMatthew CollinsMegan A. O’ReillyMelissa TrevinoMerrie Lee SoulesMichael I. GarciaMichael McElrathMichael SmithMilo ChavezNancy BurnsNann M. WinterNatalie CepakNicole V. StrauserNikki JosephNoah LongNoel John Schaefer

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 4

kauerbacher@solarcity.com;KhiF_jzins@energystrat.com;Kim.Le~art@~mail.com;Kboehrn @BKUawfirm.com;kw@keleher-law.com;k¥1e.i.smith124.civ@mail.mil;lance@fecnm.or~;nancy.burns@epelectric.com;Ipadilla@dwmrlaw.com;LMontoya@morasanmi~uel.cooo;linda.l.hudRins@xcelener~v.com;lisahickev@newlaw~roup.com;LPerrv@r~n.com:lellis@nmsu.edu;LBaca @lrrc.com;Imartinez~nma~.~ov:Lorenzo.nieto@epelectric.com;Ireves@kitcarson.com;Andrew.Unsicker@us.af.mil;marcvd@las-cruces.or~;Mariel @seedsbeneaththesnow.com;Mario.a.contreras@xcelenerRv.com;marior@ote-coop.com;Mark.fenton@pnmresources.com;Mark.Gaiser@state.nm.us;mcollins@cnmec.coop;arcresearchandanalysis@Rmail.com;Melissa Trevino@ox¥.com;mlsoules@hotmail.com;MikGarcia@bernco.Rov;Michael McEIrath@fmi.com;michaelc.smith @state.nm.us;Milo.Chavez@state.nm.us;Nancy.burns@epelectric.com;nwinter@stelznerlaw.com;Natalie.Cepak.2@us.af.mil;nvstrauser @tecoenerl~¥.com;Nioseoh@cabcL~ov;nlonR@nrdc.or~;schaefno@Rmail.com;

Patricia CardonaPatricia GriegoPerry RobinsonPeter AuhPeter GouldPhillip OldhamRalph CavanaghRamona BlaberRandall WoolridgeRandy ChildressRaymond HeymanRaymond L. GiffordRebecca CarterRichard AlvidrezRichard C. MertzRick GilliamRobert CastilloRobert ClarkRobert GarzaRobin GomezRocky BacchusRuth SakyaRyan JermanSandra Skogen-PRCSara GersenSarah BeckerShannon A. PardenSonya MaresStacey GoodwinStephen FogelSteve LuntSteven S. MichelSteven SchewebkeSteve W. ChrissSunny NixonThomas DommeThomas JerniganThomas ManningTom FigartTom Solomom

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 5

patriciacardona24@yahoo.com;patricia.RrieRo@el:)electric.com;perry.robinson@urenco.com;Pauh @abcwua.orR;DRouldlaw@Rmail.com;phillip.oldham @tklaw.com;rcavanah@nrdc.orR;Ramona.blaber@sierraclub.orR;irwoolridRe@Rmail.com;rand¥@childresslaw.com;rheyman@swlaw.com;r~ifford@wbklaw.com;racarter@tecoenerRy.com;ralvidrez@mstlaw.com;Rcmertz7@outlook.com;Rick@votesolar.org;rcastillo@cdec.coop;rclark@rnstlaw.corn;rRarza@las-cruces.orR;RGomez@LRRc.com;rockybacchus@Rmail.com;ruth.m.sakva@xcelenerRv.com;Ryan.Jerman@pnmresources.com;Sandra.SkoRen@state.nm.us;sRersen@earthiustice,orR;Sarah.Becker@state.nm.us;Sparden@rmifirm.com;Smares@hinklelawfirm.com;Stacev,Roodwin@Dnmresources.corn;stePhen.e.foRel@xcelenerRv.com;stevel@dvec.orR;Smichel@westernresources.org;Steven.schwebke@pnmresources.com;Stephen.Chriss@WaI-Mart.com;Snixon @ rode¥.com;tdomme@tecoenerg¥,com;ThornasJerniRan.3@ us.af.mil;cfrecleanenerRy@yahoo.com;tomf@donaanacount¥.orR;tasolomon6@~mail.com;

Tony A. GuruleTravis BlechaTravis RitchieVincent De CesareWilliam R. Babington, Jr.William DunkelWilliam SteeleWilliam TemplemanZoe E. LeesGayle L. Gouker

TGurule@cabo.Rov;Travis.Blecha@state.nm.us;travis.ritchie@sierradub.or~;Vincent.decesare@state,nm.us;rbabington@las-cruces.orR;williamdunkel@consultant.com;wa.steele@hotmail.com;wtempleman@cmtisantafe.com;zel@modrall.com;ggouker@navopache, org;

Via U.S. Mail to:

Kathleen O’Dea, Esq.Jemez Mountains Electric CoopPO Box 6785Santa Fe, NM 87502

Michael M. Grant, Esq.Gallagher & Kennedy, PADuncan Valley Electric Coop2575 E. Camelback Rd.Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225

Mike Newell, Esq.Lea County Electric Coop, Inc.PO Drawer 1599Lovington, NM 88260

Gary Allsup, Esq.Southwestern Electric CoopPO Box 518Clayton, NM 88415

Wiggins, Williams & WigginsMorn-San Miguel Electric Coop, Inc.Socorro Elec Coop, Inc.PO Box 1308Albuquerque, NM 87104

Dannelle J. Smith, Esq.Springer Electric Coop, Inc.PO Box 1811Las Vegas, NM 87701

Bret J. Slocum, Esq.Casey Wren, Esq.Duggings Wren Mann & Romero,LLP.P.O. Box 1149Austin, TX 78767

S. Thomas Overstreet, Esq.Otero County Electric Coop, Inc.l 011 New YorkAlamogordo, NM 88310

Kevin HigginsEnergy Strategies215 S. State Street, Suite 200Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 6

DATED this 1Th day of October, 2017.

Citizen~~h~Environment

Certificate of S~rviceCase No. 17-0019g-UTPage 7

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSEDAMENDMENTS TO THE INTEGRATEDRESOURCE PLANNING RULES 17.7.3 NMAC

Case No. 17-00198-UT

NOTICE OF ERRATA TO RESPONSE COMMENTS BYSOUTHWEST GENERATION OPERATING COMPANY~ LLC

Southwest Generation Operating Company, LLC ("SWG") hereby gives notice of the

following typographical errata in its Response Comments filed on November 1, 2017 in this

proceeding: on page 8, the citation should read NMSA §§ 8-8-4.B(5) and (10), instead of NMSA §§

62-8-4.B(5) and (10).

Respectfully submitted this 8th day of November, 2017,

Bruce C. ThroneAttorney at Law1440-B South St, Francis Dr.Santa Fe, NM 87505Tel: (505) 989-4345Email: bthroneatty@newmexico.comAttorney for Southwest Generation Operating Co.,LLC

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTSTO THE INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNINGRULES 17.7.3 NMAC

))))

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case No. 17-00198-UT

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Errata to

Response Comments by Southwest Generation Operating Company, LLC, was sent on

November 7, 2017 as indicated below to the following persons:

Via Email to:

Benjamin PhillipsRyan JermanMark FentonNancy BumsRuth SakyaJeff FornaciariPeter GouldCharles NobleSteven MichelBradford BormanCharles GunterAllen DownsDavid Van WinkleMariel Nanasi

Ben.Phillips@pnmresources.comRyan. Jennan@_apnm resources.comMark.Fenton@pnm.comnancy.burns@epelectric.comruth.sakya@xcelenergy.comj fornaciari@hinklelawfirm.compgouldlaw@gmail.comnoble.ccae@gmail.comsmichel@westernresources.orgBradford.boreman@state.nm.usCharles. Gunter@state.nm.usecomaxac@lifeisgood2.comdavid@vw77.commariel@seedsbeneaththesnow.org

Joseph YarMerrie Lee SoulesThomas ManningRob WitwerMichael C. Smith

jyar@nmag.govmlsoules@hotmail.comcfrecteanenergy@yahoo.comWitwerR@SouthwestGen.comMichelC. Smith@state.nm.us

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 1

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSEDAMENDMENTS TO THE INTEGRATEDRESOURCE PLANNING RULES 17.7.3 NMAC

Case No. 17-00198-UT

FINAL ORDER ON INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING RULE AMENDMENTS

THIS MATTER came before the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission

("Commission") on its own Motion, to commence a rulemaking proceeding to amend the

Commission Rule on Integrated Resource Plans for Electric Utilities, 17.7.3 NMAC, (herein

after referred to as the IRP Rule). Being duly informed in the premises,

THE COMMISSION FINDS AND CONCLUDES:

1. The Commission’s IRP Rule was adopted in 2007 to implement the 2005

Efficient Use of Energy Act (EUEA), NMSA § 62-17-1 et seq. The IRP Rule, following the

EUEA, require that investor-owned electric utilities engage in a resource planning process that

evaluates all feasible supply side and demand side resources on a comparable and consistent

basis.

2. On August 8, 2017, the Commission issued its Order Initiating Proposed

Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the "NOPR") and attached a copy of the

proposed amendments to the IRP Rule (the "Proposed Amendments"), under the authority of the

New Mexico Public Regulation Commission Act, Section 8-8-15 NMSA 1978; the Public Utility

Act, Section 62-3-1 NMSA 1978, et seq.; and the Efficient Use of Energy Act, Section 62-17-I

NMSA 1978, et seq.

3. The NOPR constituted due and lawful notice to all potentially interested persons.

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 1 of 21

4. The NOPR stated that Section 62-17-10 of the EUEA (2005), entitled Integrated

resource planning provides in pertinent part: "Pursuant to the commission’s rulemaking

authority, public utilities supplying electric or natural gas service to customers shall periodically

file an integrated resource plan with the commission. Utility integrated resource plans shall

evaluate renewable energy, energy efficiency, load management, distributed generation and

conventional supply-side resources on a consistent and comparable basis and take into

consideration risk and uncertainty of fuel supply, price volatility and costs of anticipated

environmental regulations in order to identify the most cost-effective portfolio of resources to

supply the energy needs of customers..."

5. The NOPR found that it should amend the IRP Rule 17.7.3.12.B NMAC to delete

or amend Section 12 (B), Use in Resource Acquisition Proceeding for the following reasons:

Section 12 (B) states that a Commission-accepted IR Plan (without any material changes) is

granted a presumption that included resource types are necessary in subsequent resource

acquisition proceedings or subsequent application proceedings for a Certificate of Convenience

and Necessity ("CCN"). The NOPR found that presumption was not contemplated by Section

62-17-10 of the EUEA which expressly states that the IRP is aplanning tool. The plain meaning

of the word "plan" is a proposed or intended course of action or an orderly or step by step

conception or proposal for accomplishing an objective or a set of decisions about how to do

something in the future.1 Further, the NOPR stated that at the time the IR Plan is accepted by

the Commission, the Plan contains only proposed or intended resource types. Therefore, the

Commission-accepted IR Plan, and its stated resource types, are not necessarily proof or prima

facie evidence, that the stated resource types (not the particular resource being proposed) are

1 http://dictionarv.cambridge.org/dictionarv/englisl~plan; http://www.thefreedictionarv.com!.Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 2 of 21

required by the public convenience and necessity. For this reason, the NOPR proposed to amend

the IRP Rule and proposed that Section 12 (B) be deleted or amended to comport with the

express and plain meaning of the word "plan" in Section 62-17-10 of the EUEA.

6. The NOPR noticed for public comment hearing the Proposed Amendments to be

held on November 15, 2017.

7. The NOPR allowed written comments and written responses from any interested

persons on the Proposed Amendments.

8. The NOPR was sent to all persons on the attached Certificate of Service. Further,

the NOPR required that at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing date, the NOPR, including

Exhibit 1, shall be mailed to all persons who have made a written request for advance notice.

9. The NOPR stated that additional Notice to "provide to the public" notice of this

rulemaking comported with the 2017 amendments to the State Rules Act, Sections 14-4-1 etseq.

NMSA 1978.2

10. Initial Written Comments and/or Response Written Comments were filed by the

following: State Representative Matthew McQueen; New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers

("NMIEC"); New Energy Economy ("NEE"); Utility Division Staff ("Staff"); Coalition for

Clean Affordable Energy ("CCAE") and Western Resource Advocates ("WRA"); E1 Paso

Electric Company ("EPE"); Merrie Lee Soules; Southwestern Public Service Company ("SPS");

Allen Downs; Public Service Company of New Mexico ("PNM"); Citizens for Fair Rates and the

Environment ("CFRE"); Interwest Energy Alliance; and Southwest Generation Operating

Company, LLC. A summary of all written comments is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Final Order.

z See, Affidavit of Publication evidencing publication of the NOPR in the Albuquerque Journal on August 20, 2017.See, Affidavit of Publication evidencing publication of the NOPR in the Las Cruces Sun-News of August 27, 2017.See, Proof of Publication evidencing publication of the NOPR in the New Mexico Register September 26, 2017.Also, the NOPR was posted on the Sunshine Portal.Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 3 of 21

11. In their filed written comments, NEE, CFRE, PNM and CCAE/WRA proposed

the following suggested additional revisions to the IRP Rule:

CFRE’S SUGGESTION -do not delete 12 B.~ instead amend 17.7.3.10 A as follows:17.7.3.10 OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY OF MATERIAL CHANGES ANDUPDATE ACTION PLAN:A_.,_The utility shall promptly notify the commission and participants of material events thatwould have the effect of changing the results of the utility’s IRP had those events beenrecognized when the IRP was developed. As part of this notification, the utility shall explainhow this event(s) has changed the action plan.B. Other parties may notify the commissionand the parties of material events that would have the effect of changing the results of theutility’s IRP had those events been recognized when the IRP was developed. As part of thisnotification, the parties shall include suggested changes to the utility’s action plan.

PNM’S SUGGESTION-yes delete 12 B. and also amend 12 A. to remove protests andhearings as follows:COMMISSION REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE AND ACTION: A. Compliance Review. Thecommission will review the utility’s proposed IRP for compliance with the procedures andobjectives set forth herein. The commission’s Utility Division Staff will review the utilitv’sproposed IRP and make a recommendation to the commission within 30 days of filing as towhether or not the IRP complies with the procedures and objectives of this rule. :F=h~

Ifth commission has notacted within forty-five=days after the filing of the proposed IRP, that IRP is deemed accepted ascompliant with this rule. If the commission determines the proposed IRP does not=comply withthe requirements of this rule, the commission will identify the=deficiencies and return it to theutility with instructions for re-filing.

CCAE/WRA SUGGESTION: delete only the last sentence of 12 B. and also amend 12 A. toallow protests but not allow hearings. Adds a sentence allowin~ any 13ar~. in anyacquisition or abandonment of service proceeding from introducing evidence that materialchanges or events have occurred since the utiHty’s filing of its most recent~ commission-approved IRP that would warrant a different course of action than described in the mostcost-effective portfolio identified in that IRP.17.7.3.12 COMMISSION REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE AND ACTION: A. ComplianceReview. The commission will review the utility’s proposed IRP for compliance with theprocedures and objectives set forth herein. The commission may accept the proposed IRP ascompliant with this rule w~tb.c:t : ~=::::=g, unless a protest is filed that demonstrates to thecommission’s reasonable satisfaction that the IRP should not be accepted a hea.~.qgProtests must be filed within 30 days of the filing of the proposed IRP. If the commission has notacted within 45 days after the filing of the proposed IRP, that IRP is deemed accepted ascompliant with this rule. If the commission determines the proposed IRP does not comply withthe requirements of this rule, the commission will identify the deficiencies and return it to the

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 4 of 21

utility with instructions for re-filing or correction in the next IRP. B. Use in ResourceAcquisition Proceedings. In a proceeding concerning a utility’s request for a CCN for a newutility resource, or in other proceedings concerning a utility’s resource acquisition, the utilityshall present evidence that the requested resource is consistent with the commission-acceptedutility IRP unless material changes, as described in Section 17.7.3.10 of this rule, have occurredthat would warrant a different utility course of action. E:’!~c:’.cc tk=t tkc rczc"_rcc !z c==z!:tc=t

"~ :.ccczz!ty. Nothingin this section or this rule shall prevent any party from presenting evidence in a utility resourceacquisition or abandonment of service proceeding that material changes or events have occurredsince the utility’s filing of its most recent, commission-approved IRP that would warrant adifferent course of action than described in the most cost-effective portfolio identified in thatIRP.

NEE’S SUGGESTION-do not delete all of 12 B. and instead amend it to add"abandonment" to be considered in an IRP and add a required RFP process.17.7.3.12 COMMISSION REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE AND ACTION: B. Usein Resource Acquisition or Abandonment of Service Proceedings. In a proceeding concerning a,,+;1;+.,,o,~**..: o utility’s request for commission approval of a new supply-side_ resource or itsabandonment of service from an existing su -side resource ....................... +

" tility........ , ........... preceed:ng~ cencem:ng a """+’" ...............;o;+;"" the u shallpresent evidence addressin~ whether t-hat-the requested resource or abandonment of service isconsistent with the most cost-effective portfolio identified in the utilit¥’s most recently filed andcommission-accepted-m4/it-y IRP and, if not consistent, whether ~a~,ess-material changes, asdescribed in Section 17.7.3.10 of this rule, have occurred that would warrant a different utilitycourse of action. A utility may rely on egvidence that the resource or abandonment of servicerequested is consistent with the most cost-effective portfolio identified in the utility’s mostrecently filed and commission-accepted IRP~ and that there have not been material changes thatwould warrant a different course of action by the utility~- to show ,;,,i!! constitute p~ima facieevidence that the ~ of resource requested-type, but not the particular resource being proposed,is needed by the utility to provide adequate, efficient and reasonable service to its customers atjust and reasonable rates, or that the abandonment of service proposed is consistent with theobjective in Section 17.7.3.6 of this rule. Nothing in this section or this rule shall prevent anyparty from presenting evidence in a utility resource acquisition or abandonment of serviceproceeding that material changes or events have occurred since the utilit¥’s filing of its mostrecent, commission-approved IRP that would warrant a different course of action than describedin the most cost-effective portfolio identified in that IRP. In a proceeding concerning a utility’srequest for commission approval of a new supply-side resource, the utility shall provide thecommission with evidence addressing the results of a utility’s competitive request for proposalsand bid evaluation process that is reasonable and competitively fair to show that the utilityreasonably identified and evaluated all feasible resource alternatives to meet its stated serviceneed and that the particular resource proposed is the utility’s most cost-effective option amongthose alternatives unless the utility provides evidence of extraordinary circumstances showing

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 5 of 21

the commission that doing so is not necessary to protect the interests of the utilitv’scus+omers.re~u~rea~ ,+* -. r,., +r, .... m; ........ : ...... a ...... a.,

EPE’S SUGGESTION- delete 12 B. and also amend 12 A. to delete protests and hearing.17.7.3.12.A. COMMISSION REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE AND ACT:’@N: ~~. The commission will review the utility’s proposed IRP for compliance with theprocedures and objectives set forth herein. +u ..... :~: ............ ~. ........ a m,, ~

SPS’s SUGGESTIONS-delete 12 B. and also delete 17.7.3.9.1 and 17.7.3.10 NMAC relatedto the Action Plan. Also amend 12 A. to delete protests.

J

17.7.3.12.A NMAC as follows: Compliance Review.ACTION:The co~ission will review the utility’s proposed I~ for compliance with theprocedures ~d objectives set fo~h herein ~ ..... :~: .............

30 gay: :f t+:: ~+i=g :f tk: Fray:a:+ IP~. If the co~ission has not acted within 45 days a~erthe filing of the proposed I~, that I~ is deemed accepted as compli~t with this role. If theco~ission dete~ines the proposed I~ does not comply with the requirements of this role, theco~ission will identi~ the deficiencies and ream it to the utility with ins~ctions for re-filing.

INTERWEST ENERGY ALLIANCE- delete only the last sentence of 12 B. B. Use inResource Acquisition Proceedings. In a proceeding concerning a utility’s request for a CCN for anew utility resource, or in other proceedings concerning a utility’s resource acquisition, theutility shall present evidence that the requested resource is consistent with the commission-accepted utility IRP unless material changes, as described in Section 17.7.3.10 of this rule, haveoccurred that would warrant a different utility course of action. E;-i~zn:c tkat ÷,~: rzz:’ar:: !:

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 6 of 21

12. The Commission finds that Staff, PNM, SPS, EPE and NMIEC support removal

of Section 12 B. and finds their comments are well-taken. As stated in these parties’ written

comments, the EUEA expressly states that a utility’s IRP a planning tool3 and the EUEA does

not state that there is any presumption attached to a Commission-accepted IRP. The removal of

Section 12 B. complies with the EUEA because the presumption of prima facie evidence in a

subsequent resource acquisition proceeding was not contemplated by Section 62-17-10 of the

EUEA which expressly states that the IRP is aplanning tool. The IRP statute never intended the

IRP process to become a fully litigated process over a period of years and was never intended to

become a substitute for and at times a duplication of the CCN process. Section 12(B) created

value in the IRP that was not initially envisioned in the EUEA and in Rule 17.7.3, and this has

resulted in confusion and uncertainty as to how much credence should be placed on a utility’s

IRP, what it means for an IRP to be "accepted" or not, and what exactly it means to have a

resource type included in an IRP, or not. For these reasons, the Commission concurs with Staff

that the deletion of Section 12 B. will add some clarity to these questions that will benefit all

participants in the IRP process.

13. Further, the Commission finds that the suggestion of PNM, supported by EPE and

SPS, to remove the heating (CCAE/WRA also supported removing the hearing provision) based

upon the following. The IRP process, which was intended by the EUEA as a planning tool, has

become a many-year cycle of planning and litigation that is duplicative because when a utility

applies for the addition of specific resources, this is also re-litigated in the CCN cases. While, the

IRP Rule requires utilities to identify the most cost effective portfolio of resources, utilities also

3 See, Exhibit 1 attached to this Order.

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 7 of 21

bear the burden of proof in CCN cases of demonstrating, among other things, that a proposed

facility is the most economical choice among feasible alternatives.4 The Commission does not

concur with PNM, SPS and EPE that the protest provision should be removed entirely because

public participation is required by the EUEA. The Commission instead finds that the permission

of the filing of public comments in support or in opposition to the utility’s proposed IRP filing

after it is filed is reasonable and sufficient to fulfill the public participation requirements of the

EUEA. Further, the Commission concurs with PNM that it would be beneficial to the

Commission and in the public interest for Staff to file a recommendation stating whether or not

the proposed IRP filing made by the utility complies with the Rule’s purpose and objectives and

therefore extends the deadline for Commission acceptance by fifteen (15) days to allow for

Staff’s filing.

14. For these reasons, the Commission proposes that Section 12 be amended as

follows:

17.7.3.12 COMMISSION REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE AND ACTION:

A. Compliance Review. The commission will review the utility’s proposed IRP for compliance withthe procedures and objectives set forth herein. "r~. ..... :oo~ ............. ~.~ W~p^~n mD ......t~ ......~,~. ,~.~o

Pa!e without a ...... ~ ........ a v ..................................................................................... ~ ......... : ................................... : ~o~ ~: ........... ~ ......prepe~ed IP~. Wfi~en publicco~ents ma~ filed wi~n twenty (20) days of the utility’s fil~g of the proposed I~ ~ suppo~ or ~ opposition ofthe proposed I~ as filed. The utility shall file, within fo~ (40) days of ~e utility’s filing of the proposed I~, a~tten response to all ~tten public co~ents ~at were t~ely filed in suppo~ or ~ opposition, stat~g whether ornot it ~ll inco~orate ~y of the ~en comments into its proposed I~ ~d state its reasons why or why not. Theco~ission’s utility division staff shall renew the utility’s proposed I~ as filed ~d shall consider the filed ~i~enpublic co~ents ~ suppo~ or ~ opposition ~d ~e utility’s ~en response and shall file a ~ttenreco~endafion to ~e commission wit~ sixt~ (60) days of utili~’s fil~g as to whether or not ~e I~ complieswith the procedures ~d obiectives of ~is ~le and whether or not it reco~ends that ~e co~ission accept theproposed I~ as filed. If the co~ission has not acted wit~n fe~y...~"~ ta~ .~ ~ ~ety (90) days a~er ~e filing of ~eproposed I~, ~at I~ is deemed accepted as compli~t wi~ ~s ~le. If the co~ission dete~es ~e proposedI~ does not comply ~th the requirements of t~s ~le, ~e co~ission will identi~ the deficiencies and re~ it to¯ e utiliW with ~s~ctions for re-fil~g.

4 See, Exhibit 1 attached hereto.Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 8 of 21

............. ~ ........ er ;- ~*~ pm:eeding~ c~n:emmg a ufi!ity’~

...... ~ ............................................................................. a different u course of

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

A. The IRP Rule 17.7.3.12 shall be amended as set forth in Paragraph 14 herein

under the authority vested in this Commission by the New Mexico Public Regulation

Commission Act, Section 8-8-15 NMSA 1978; the Public Utility Act, Section 62-3-1 NMSA

1978, et seq.; and the Efficient Use of Energy Act, Section 62-17-1 NMSA 1978, et seq.

B. This Order shall be effective immediately

C. Additional Notice to "provide to the public" notice of this rulemaking shall

comport with the 2017 amendments to the State Rules Act, Sections 14-4-1 etseq. NMSA 1978

and the amendments shall be effective when published in the New Mexico Register.

D. This docket is closed.

E. A copy of this Order shall be served on all parties on the attached Certificate of

Service via email, if their email addresses are known, and if not known, via regular mail and

notice to the public

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 9 of 21

ISSUED under the Seal of the Commission at Santa Fe, New Mexico, this 10th day of

January, 2018.

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

SAN~ISSIONER

CYNTHI~ HALL, COMMISSIONER

ESPINOZA,

~ATRICK H. LYONS, ~’OMMISSIONER

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 10 of 21

EXHIBIT 1

COMMENTERS AGAINST NOPR’S DELETION OF 12 B.

MATTHEW MCQUEEN-REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 50"The purpose of Section 12(B) of the Commission’s "IRP Rule" is to address the relevance anduse of utility integrated resource plans in utility resource acquisition proceeding. This Sectiondoes so by providing that, if the "type" of resource proposed by a utility is consistent with the"type" of resource described in the "most cost-effective portfolio" identified in its most recentCommission-accepted plan, the utility may rely on that consistency as "prima facie evidence thatthe resource type, but not the particular resource proposed, is required by the public convenienceand necessity." Without Section 12(B), I am concerned that the remaining IRP Rule would likelytransform the preparation of these integrated resource plans by utilities, including the "publicadvisory process" required in § 62-17-10, into meaningless exercises and paper filings, withoutany meaningful relationship or relevance to utility resource procurement cases, which I believewould be contrary to the intent and purposes of that statute" Letter dated November 1,2017

NEE

¯ Do not delete 12 B because: 1) it is necessary for the Commission to address theregulatory effect, if any, of such utility IRP filings in resource acquisition and abandonmentproceedings in an appropriate manner that is consistent with NMSA § 62-17-10 and the IRP Ruleand 2) it is necessary not only to protect the constitutional due process rights of participants inthose cases, but also to ensure that the "public advisory process" required by § 62-17-10 and theIRP Rule (17.7.3.9.H NMAC) is meaningful going forward.¯ If the Commission simply deletes Section 12(B), the Commission will be sending amessage to the public that public participation in a utility’s integrated resource planning processwill be meaningless and that there is little, if any, reason for members of the public to carefullyreview future proposed IRPs filed by utilities and, if and when justified, protest a proposed IRPbased on its failure to fully comply with its procedures and objectives, as provided in Section12(A).¯ Instead of deleting Section 12(B) in its entirety from its IRP Rule, the Commissionshould amend it to clarify that any party in a resource acquisition case is allowed to challenge autility’s claim that no "material events" have occurred since the filing of its most recent,Commission-accepted IRP that would change the results of the Four-Year Action Plan or thetype(s) of resources identified in the "most cost effective portfolio" ("MCEP") included in thatIRP.¯ NEE wants to add language requiring a competitive RFP whose scope and provisions arereasonable and not exclusionary and a reasonable bid evaluation process that is competitively fairby evaluating all proposals on the "consistent and comparable basis" expressly required inSection 9.G of the IRP Rule, the utility cannot reasonably show that its proposed resource is itsmost cost-effective option among all "feasible" alternatives and the Commission lacks the"substantial" (i.e., reliable) evidence necessary to reasonably make that finding.¯ NEE wants to keep and amend 12 B because a utility’s compliance with the proceduresand objectives of that statute and the Commission’s review of IRPs proposed by utilities needs to

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 11 of 21

continue to matter to the public and all stakeholders. They need to be motivated to participate inthe integrated resource planning conducted by utilities.¯ NEE wants to keep, when justified, the protest of proposed IRPs for failure to fullycomply with the requirements in and objective of the Rule and the statute.¯ NEE opposes the initial comments submitted by the three regulated electric utilities todelete Section 12(B) and remove the protest provision as well. PNM acknowledges that theeffect of the deletion would "remove any evidentiary weight" to the IRP.¯ NEE argues that eliminating protests would undermine the "purpose" of the integratedresource planning process - to engage the public in the process of utility resource planning and,ultimately, procurement and abandonment, as set forth in NMSA § 62-17-10 and Rule 17.7.3 etseq. This would remove the teeth from the current and NEE proposed modification of the IRPrule.¯ Without the procedure set forth in the current and NEE proposed modification of the IRPrule the whole resource planning process would essentially be gutted: there would be no effecton a utility’s procurement decisions.¯ Protests, and the hearing that may be associated, are valuable because 1) to have the IRPbe a meaningful process such that feasible alternatives are evaluated on a consistent andcomparable basis; and if not 2) that Protests can be lodged and deficiencies be cured. This helpsensure that the process is effective and fairly balances the desires of the utilities and the public.¯ NEE maintains there is nothing in NMSA § 62-17-10 that prevents the Commission fromaddressing the regulatory effect or significance of a utility’s IRP filing in a resource acquisitionproceeding in its IRP Rule.¯ Although that New Mexico statute and the Commission’s IRP Rule do not expresslyrequire that utilities use competitive RFPs to identify all "feasible" resource options available tothem to meet their stated needs and the costs of those alternatives, that is the widely acceptedstandard practice in the regulated utility industry in this country for satisfying that proceduralrequirement and determining the utility’s most cost-effective resource option.

MERRIE LEE SOULES

¯ Wants to keep 12 B. because: 1) this provision is what gives the Rule significance; 2)eliminating the prima facie presumption will make the IRP an exercise without purpose becausethe utility could then file an unsatisfactory IRP, stakeholders will protest it, and theCommission will find itself docketing cases that no one, not the utility, the stakeholders, northe Commission will see the purpose of spending time, money, and effort to resolve. Whatwould be the point? It would make no difference to future resource acquisitions proposed bythe utility in CCN proceedings or to anything else.¯ Wants to keep the presumption because the IRP is the only requirement of theCommission that charges the regulated utility to consider its entire resource portfolio andits costs as a system. The IRP is the process that evaluates alternatives and their resultingoverall impact to the portfolio or system. In comparison, a CCN proceeding or other resourceacquisition proceeding evaluates only the resource being proposed by the utility and does notaddress the impact to the overall system of integrating the proposed resource into that system.¯ Wants to keep the presumption because it is reasonable that a resource that "isconsistent with the commission-accepted utility IRP" (17.7.3.12.B NMAC) would have theFinal Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 12 of 21

presumption ’~hat the resource type, but not the particular resource being proposed, isrequired by the public convenience and necessity".¯ She believes it is within the Commission’s responsible review and determination thatthe resource type is consistent with the most cost effective portfolio of resources in the IRPand is an appropriate basis for"proof’ or"prima facie evidence" is established.¯ She points out that the presumption related to the resource acquisition no longerapplies if circumstances change from the time of the IRP acceptance to the point where theutility is seeking Commission approval to proceed with a resource acquisition.¯ Additionally, just because a resource is consistent with the accepted IRP, andtherefore prima facie evidence that the resource type is required by the public convenienceand necessity, does not mean that the Commission has no options. It does mean that theburden of proof shifts from the utility to other parties in a resource acquisitionproceeding.¯ She believes that obtaining Commission acceptance of an IRP means the utility benefitsfrom the presumption that a resource consistent with that accepted IRP and that it is required bythe public convenience and necessity. This motivates the utility to produce a sound IRP thatwarrants acceptance by the Commission. The same significance applies to other stakeholderswho have an interest in assuring the accepted IRP satisfied the procedures and objectives of theRule.

CITIZENS FOR FAIR RATES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

¯ CFRE contends 17.7.3.12 B., as written, reinforces the stakeholder process and thus,this section of the IRP rule should remain in force.¯ CFRE i s c oncerned that the approach proposed by the Commission would underminethe Integrated Resource planning process.¯ Does not w a n t t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o sacrifice the legislative intent of havingstrong and enforceable stakeholder involvement in the IR planning process.¯ The designation of a resource type in an IRP should be considered prima facieevidence is because of the extensive process involved in obtaining a Commission approvedIRP.¯ IR planning process is designed to engage stakeholders in a substantive andmeaningful process evaluating a utility’s future resource needs and the best ways to fill thoseneeds.¯ This "public advisory process" is mandated by § 62-17-10 and by 17.7.3.9.H NMAC.The thoroughness of the process is additionally ensured by the opportunity for challengesto the Integrated Resource Plans ("IRPs")by means of protests and support through comments,and if the Commission finds it warranted, the Commission itself may initiate a case in order toreview the IR planning process and the IRP.

ALLEN DOWNS

¯ Section 17.7.3.12(B) of the IRP rules should not be eliminated and does not need to bechanged.¯ Removing 17.7.3.12(B) would weaken the IRP process.

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 13 of 21

¯ Developing and approving an IRP does not duplicate the effort of applying for andreceiving a CCN because these processes have different goals and both are needed to produce thebest result for ratepayers.¯ The IRP process considers the entire resource picture over the next 20 years, while theCCN process is focused on a single resource. The IRP defines the overall picture while a CCNfills in one part of that larger picture.¯ Citizens for Fair Rates and the Environment has proposed adding a section B to 17.7.3.10(Obligation to notify of Material Changes and Update Action Plan). The proposed languagewould allow parties other than the utility to notify the Commission of material events andsuggest changes to the utility’s action plan.¯ New Energy Economy has proposed expanding section 17.7.3.12(B) to allow for the useof an accepted IRP in abandonment proceedings in addition to resource acquisition proceedings.¯ Downs agrees with both of these proposed changes.

INTERWEST ENERGY ALLIANCE--FOR PART/AGAINST PART

¯ Supports eliminating the second sentence of Subsection B.¯ Does not support deletion of the first sentence of Subsection B because the IRP shouldnot be construed as a substitute for the CCN process.¯ Evidence of a proposed resource’s consistency with the utility’s IRP should beconsidered in CCN proceedings to provide context, but should not be accorded apresumption as prima facie evidence of its requirement. U tility bears the burden of proof toshow that the proposed resource is itself in the public interest and fits within a plan that isalso in the public interest and therefore the presentation of evidence in a CCN proceeding ofthe requested resource’s consistency with a utility’s Commission-accepted IRP,¯ Does not support PNM, EPE and SPS’s ~ to entirely eliminate the protest andheating provisions in subsection 17.7.3.A NMAC ("Subsection A"), or as suggested by PNM,to rely on Staff s input alone to determine whether a heating is necessary.¯ Current language in Subsection A provides the Commission discretion to make aninformed decision, based on input from stakeholders, as to whether a heating is necessary.¯ Subsection A should not be modified.

.SOUTHWEST GENERATING¯ Wants the modifications as proposed by NEE. Believes appropriate provisions in Section12(B)addressing the use of Commission-"accepted" IRPs in resource acquisition (andabandonment) proceedings are necessary to ensure that the utility integrated resource and publicadvisory processes required by do not become meaningless exercises and will accomplish theintent and objectives of that statute¯ The Commission cannot remove the existing "prima facie evidence" provision in Section12(B) without replacing it with a provision that appropriately addresses the use of utility IRPs inresource acquisition proceedings. To do so would effectively eliminate the effectiveness of theIRP Rule.¯ Simply deleting Section 12(B) in its entirety, without would be consistent with the intentand objectives of that statute.

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 14 of 21

¯ Deletion makes utility compliance or failure to fully comply with all of the requirementsin the IRP Rule essentially meaningless for all stakeholders, thereby undermining theCommission’s obligation to achieve the objectives stated in that statute.¯ SWG believes removal of the protest provision in Section 12(A), as recommended byPNM (and EPE and SPS), is contrary to the intent and objectives of § 62-17-10 because thiswould reduce, if not eliminate altogether, any reason for interested members of the public toparticipate in the "public advisory process" mandated by that statute.¯ PNM’s recommended Rule changes would be procedurally unfair to non-utilitystakeholders due to the elimination of their right to address those planning issues in a timelymanner, before a utility proceeds with resource procurement (or service abandonment) actions toimplement those plans.¯ SPS’s further recommendations that the Commission delete Sections 9.1 and 10 of theIRP Rule addressing the four-year "Action Plan" requirements in the Rule also would be contraryto the intent and objectives of § 62-17-10 because these important provisions in the Rule, such asthe four-year "Action Plan" requirement in Section 9.1 addresses the "specific actions the utilitywill take to implement the integrated resource plan spanning a four-year period following thefiling of the utility’s IRP."

COMMENTERS FOR NOPR’S DELETION OF 12 B.

PNM¯ PNM supports the removal of Section 12(B) from 17.7.3 NMAC since a utility’s IRP aplanning tool, only PNM supports deletion of Section 12(B) of the IRP Rule provided thatadditional amendments are made to Section 12(A) of the rule to delete provisions for protest to autility’s IRP filing, and for a subsequent hearing based on such protest from Section 12(A) of theIRP Rule and add delegating the review of a utility’s IRP filing to Staff to conduct a review ofeach IRP filing and make a recommendation to the Commission as to whether or not the IRPfiling is compliant with the IRP Rule, within 30 days of the filing. If acceptance of an IRP willno longer constitute prima facie evidence that a particular resource type is required by thepublic convenience and necessity in subsequent proceedings for a CCN for a new utility resourceor concerning acquisition of other utility resources, then there is no need to allow protests to theIRP, and no need to conduct drawn-out litigation on those protests.¯ A utility’s IRP becomes a report to the Commission, and as such can be easily reviewedby Staff to ascertain its compliance with requirements of the IRP Rule.¯ The IRP Rule already provides extensive opportunities for public participation in thedevelopment of a utility’s IRP.¯ Nothing to be gained from litigation of the final report because the Commission’sproposed amendment makes the final IRP document an informational filing only.¯ PNM believes the deletion would mean that the purpose of an IRP would be todemonstrate that a utility engaged in a periodic planning process as required by the IRP statute,NMSA 1978, § 62-17-10 (2005).¯ Litigating an IRP as if it were an adjudicatory proceeding for Commission approval of aspecific utility action creates redundant and potentially parallel processes where the same issueslitigated in an IRP case [abandonment proceeding, a Rule 551 proceeding for Purchased PowerAgreement ("PPA") approval and/or a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CCN")Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 15 of 21

case].¯ Does not support NEE’s proposal to add "abandonment" because it would actuallyincrease the amount of litigation in IRP cases.¯ The IRP process has become a never-ending cycle of planning and litigation that addslittle value to the Commission’s regulatory oversight of utilities because the addition of specificresources is also litigated in CCN cases. The IRP Rule requires utilities to identify the most costeffective portfolio of resources, 17.7.3.9(B)(7) NMAC, but utilities also bear the burden of proofin CCN cases of demonstrating, among other things, that a proposed facility is the mosteconomical choice among feasible alternatives.¯ A utility must file its IRP every three years, 17.7.3.9 NMAC, and must begin the publicadvisory process "at least one year prior to the filing date of its IRP." 17.7.3.9(H) NMAC. Ifprotests to the IRP are filed and adjudicative-type litigation ensues, the utility and intervenorsmay still be litigating over acceptance of that IRP while the utility is preparing its next IRP.¯ Regarding the comments by Mr. Downs, Ms. Soules, NEE, and CFRE, PNM does notagree with their arguments to reject the Commission’s proposed deletion of Section 12(B) on theground that deletion would supposedly diminish the importance of the IRP and the publicadvisory process.¯ PNM argues that that deletion of 12 B. is ok because you are still keeping all of the IRPRule’s provisions regarding IRP content, the public advisory process, and requirement that theCommission review a filed IRP for compliance with the Rule.17.7.3.12(A) NMAC. The publicadvisory process will remain an important part of the IRP process. See Section 9(H) ("Publicinput is critical to the development and implementation of integrated resource planning in NewMexico").¯ Wants rejection of NEE’s additional language inconsistent with the IRP Rule and outsidethe scope of the Commission’s NOPR that addresses the evidence intervenors in a CCN orabandonment case may introduce and that requires utilities to provide evidence of a "reasonableand competitively fair" bid evaluation process.¯ NEE’s suggested addition is contrary to the IRP’s use as a planning tool and, because itprovides requirements for CCN and abandonment cases, is outside the scope of the IRP Rule.¯ NEE’s additions are adding further requirements to the IRP Rule which would onlyincrease the amount of litigation in the never-ending cycle.¯ PNM also rejects CFRE’s suggestion amending Section 10(B) of the IRP Rule to providethat "other parties may notify the commission and the parties of material events that would havethe effect of changing the results of the utility’s IRP had those events been recognized when theIRP was developed." Because the IRP itself is a utility document.¯ Also, allowing other parties to bring up material changes is inconsistent with the IRP’suse as a utility planning tool. And this is unnecessary because the IRP Rule provides that thepublic advisory group is to provide input on the development of the IRP and intervenors mayaddress material changes in the IRP public advisory process and can address the costeffectiveness of a particular resource, in a CCN case. Permitting such filings in an IRP docketwould only increase the amount of litigation.

NMIEC¯ Supports the proposed amendment to deleteauthority.Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 16 of 21

12 (B) because there is no statutory

¯ Believes that 12 (B) has been a problem because utilities have attempted in the recentpast to use the mere inclusion or exclusion of an asset in their IRP Plans as prima facieevidence that that asset should be granted a CCN or approved for abandonment.¯ The statute, NMPUA, do not support any presumption of reasonableness simplybecause an asset has either been included or excluded in a utility’s IRP.¯ The CCN certification of utility plant is a critical, stand-alone process in New Mexico’sregulatory compact¯ The abandonment of utility plant is a stand-alone process where the utility mustaddress the following factors¯ The IRP process is intended to show the Commission, and interested stakeholders, thatthe regulated utilities are making reasonable forecasts of future resource needs, are consideringall reasonable resource options on a comparable basis, and are conducting this planning withthe goal of achieving a resource mix that results in the lowest reasonable cost for the ratepayers.¯ But, in today’s environment of fast-paced changes in the utility resource marketplace --the IRP process does not supply the in-depth, current information needed to support a requestfor a either a plant CCN or a plant abandonment.

EPE¯ EPE and several other stakeholders, Staff, NMIEC, PNM, SPS, and WRA/CCAE,support the Commission’s proposal because the presumption has caused uncertainty,confusion and unnecessary and wasteful litigation regarding utility planning and rule compliancedocument required by the EUEA.¯ EPE agrees with Staffs characterization of an IRP as a planning tool that should not beconstrued as a substitute for a CCN.¯ EPE similarly agrees with NMIEC’s conclusion, codified in part in Section 9 1 (2) of theRule, that the IRP process does not supplant or replace resource acquisition and abandonmentproceedings.¯ Supports the proposed amendment to remove Section 12(B) as long as the Commissionmakes a corresponding amendment to remove the protest proceeding provisions from Section12(A) of the Rule because an IRP protest proceeding should not be required for aplanningdocument, expected to change over time, a n d n o p r o t e s t i s n e e d e d i f t h e I R Pcarries no evidentiary weight in a resource addition proceeding.¯ Protests for a compliance filing would be contrary to administrative economy andefficiency.¯ The proposed corresponding amendment is necessary to maintain consistency with the’]91anning" purposes of the Efficient Use of Energy Act noted in the NOPR.¯ Necessary to maintain consistency with the ’]91anning" purpose of other sections5 of the

5 Section 7(K) which defines the IRP planning period as atwenty year period; Section 9 which requires an IRP to be

filed every three years; Section 9( 1)(1) which requires an IRP to include a 4-Year Action Plan; Section 9(1)(2) whichprovides that an IRP 4-Year Action Plan does not replace or supplant any requirements for applications for approvalof resource additions set forth inNew Mexico law or commission regulations; and Section I0 which requires anelectric utility to notify the Commission and the public advisory process participants of material events that wouldhave the effect of changing the results of the utility’s IRP and to update the IRP’s 4-Year Action Plan.

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 17 of 21

Rule.¯ If remove evidentiary presumption for a "Commission-accepted" IRP then its onlylogical to eliminate from the Rule the corresponding Section which provides for the protest.¯ Also, the protests are not needed because Section 13 of the Rule authorizes theCommission to conduct any proceeding or investigation into any matter related to a filed IRP.¯ EPE believes that protests of a filed IRP can trigger a protracted, costly andburdensome administrative proceeding concerning what otherwise would be a Rule compliancefiling with the Commission.¯ EPE also supports removal of Section 12(A) Hearing Requirement (proposed byCCAE, WRA, PNM and SPS) because a hearing on a planning document is contrary to theplanning and compliance purposes of the EUEA and the Rule, and any heating on aprotestedIRP could lead to unnecessary and wasteful litigation.¯ EPE argues that the removal of the heating option for a protested IRP from Section12(A) of the Rule does not limit the Commission’s authority to investigate any matter pertainingto an IRP or to require the filing of any additional information provided for by Section 13 ofthe Rule entitled ’Tkdditional Investigation and Information".¯ Generally supportive of the further amendments to Section 12(A) of the Rulerecommended by SPS and PNM --consistent with the planning and compliance purposes ofthe EUEA and the Rule.¯ O p p o s e s the WRA/CCAE proposal which would require the utility to re-file andcorrect any deficiencies in its next IRP because a lingering, protested and ambiguous IRP, asto compliance status, and would add to unceiainty, confusion and probable litigation.¯ EPE does not accept SPS’s proposal to remove Sections 9 1 and 10 of the Rule, relatedto an IRP’s Four-Year Action Plan, because 9 I and 10,are consistent with the planning andcompliance purposes of the EUEA and Rule therefore those provisions from the Rule areunnecessary and inconsistent with the planning and Rule compliance purposes of an IRP.¯ EPE does not support the WRA/CCAE proposal to retain Section 12(B) first sentenceregarding use in resource acquisition proceedings, with the evidentiary presumption languageremoved. It is EPE’s position that retention of this use in other proceedings requirementwould continue to cause unnecessary confusion and uncertainty for stakeholders.¯ EPE opposes the proposal of CFRR to amend the Rule to add a provision to Section I 0to allow a third party the authority to notify the commission of a material change ofcircumstances and require that the third party changes to a Commission-accepted IRP beidentified in a utility resource acquisition proceeding required under Sectionl2(B). Thisproposal exceeds the scope of the NOPR ordered in this case and would authorize a thirdparty to unlawfully intrude into utility management decisions.¯ Opposes the proposal of NEE to revise Section 12(B) to expand the scope of use toabandonment proceedings and to authorize third parties to present evidence of materialevents that would have changed the results of the utility’s IRP. This proposal exceeds the scopeof the NOPR in this case and would authorize a third party to unlawfully intrude into utilitymanagement decisions. The proposal would also authorize re-litigation of prior CommissionFinal Orders regarding resource acquisitions each time an IRP is filed at the Commission indirect contravention of the planning and compliance purposes of the EUEA and the Rule, and in

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 18 of 21

direct contravention of the express purposes of the goals and objectives of the NOPR in thisdocket.

STAFF¯ Staff does support the elimination of Section 12(B)¯ The proposed change to remove Section 12 (B) is reasonable because it is consistent withSection 62-17-10 of the Efficient Use of Energy Act ("EUEA"). 12 B goes beyond the purposeof the IRP as a planning tool.¯ The IRP statute never intended the IRP process become a substitute for CCN process.¯ Section 12(B) created value in the IRP that was not initially envisioned in the EUEAand in Rule 17.7.3, and this has resulted in confusion and uncertainty as to how much credenceshould be placed on a utility’s IRP, what it means for an IRP to be "accepted" or not, and whatexactly it means to have a resource type included in an IRP, or not. Staff believes the proposedchange will add some clarity to these questions that will benefit all participants in the IRP process.¯ All IOUs also seek to eliminate the protest provisions set forth in 17.7.3.12(A) NMAC.¯ The IOUs take strong issue with the extended litigation process that has recently arisenfrom such protests. PNM recommends that, instead of entertaining protests, Staff be tasked withreviewing and issuing a recommendation on an Integrated Resource Plan ("IRP") within 30 daysof its filing.¯ Staff opposes the recommendations of the IOUs to eliminate the protest provision of17.7.3.12(A) NMAC.¯ Staff further opposes PNM’s recommendation that the protest provision be replaced byexpedited, 30-day Staff review and recommendation regarding the IRP, with the Commission toapparently make its determination solely upon that recommendation.¯ Staff does not agree with the IOU’s, however, with regard to eliminating protests, orStaffs filing of a recommendation within 30 days of the filing of the IRP.¯ Protest provision of 17.7.3.12(A) NMAC serves multiple purposes in the IRP process. 1)it helps to ensure that the utilities perform the IRP process, including the required publicadvisory process, in a fair manner that meets the purpose of the IRP rule. Without protest, theCommission may not be made sufficiently aware of any problems in the public advisory process.2) protest can provide the Commission with considerable insight into concerns with the IRP thatshould be examined more closely.¯ Staff does acknowledge the utilities’ concerns about the extended process that hasresulted from recently filed IRP protests.¯ Suggests 1) Retain the current opportunity for protest set forth in 17.7.3.12(A) NMAC; 2)The Commission at its discretion may direct Staff to file in the record within 90 days after thedeadline for protests its report and recommendation regarding the IRP and the protests received.3) Based on the IRP, any protests received, and Staffs report, the Commission can decidewhether to accept the IRP or not, without the extended litigation schedule.¯ Allen Downs of Las Cruces, Merrie Lee Soules, Citizens for Fair Rates and theEnvironment object to the elimination of Section 12 B. because this section provides somepurpose to the IRP process, and that removing it would result in the utility taking the IRP processless seriously.

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 19 of 21

¯ Staff disagrees because the Rule still ensures that utilities are serious about the IRPprocess because they can still file protests, Staff could recommend against acceptance of an IRP,commission could still reject the IRP under Rule 17.7.3.12(A) and return it to the utility withinstructions for re-filing.

CCAE AND WRA

¯ IRP and CCN is now a double process.¯ Amendment will help parties and the Commission Staff to conserve resources wastedthrough unnecessary litigation.¯ Current Rule, utilities issue IRPs and then Staff and intervenors may challenge thesufficiency, compliance or findings of those reports, with the potential for protracted discoveryand hearings.¯ Even after an IRP heating, when a utility subsequently decides to site and build a facility,a certificate of public convenience and necessity is required, and Staff and intervenors may againlitigate the need for, or type of proposed facility during the CCN process.¯ Should IRPs be subject to hearings? No. Recognized for what they are: the utility’sresource plan and no more.¯ Does not support the proposal made by E1 Paso Electric, PNM, and Southwestern PublicService Company that the presumption be deleted only if the provision providing for protests to autility’s IRP is also deleted.¯ Would support streamlining the protest process in the current IRP rule by taking out theheating provision.¯ Would not support removing the public’s right to protest an IRP altogether--it wouldeliminate any incentive for the utility to conduct a meaningful IRP process.¯ Need to ensure that utilities comply with the EUEA and IRP rule, and attendant need fora check on the utility’s compliance because the Commission has determined that "[p]ublic inputis critical to the development and implementation of integrated resource planning in NewMexico." 17.7.3.9(H) NMAC (emphasis added).¯ Need Commission to check whether the utilities are adequately complying with therequirements of the EUEA and the IRP rule, especially one that extends to those following andactive in the public advisory process.¯ Don’t want the IRP process to become an exercise without meaning.¯ IRP should serve as a "planning tool." NMSA § 62-17-10. --"evaluate renewable energy,energy efficiency, load management, distributed generation and conventional supply-sideresources on a consistent and comparable basis," ---"preparation of resource plans shallincorporate a public advisory process." NMSA § 62-17-10.¯ Supports the proposal by New Energy Economy that the IRP rule to include reference notonly to "resource acquisition" proceedings, but also to "abandonment of service proceedings."¯ Evaluation of whether existing resources continue to constitute part of the utility’s "mostcost-effective portfolio," is of equal importance and consistent with the Legislature’s finding inthe EUEA that "resource planning to meet New Mexico’s energy service needs should beidentified and evaluated on an ongoing basis." NMSA § 62-17-2(I).¯ Utility should bear the burden of proof that a proposed resource is in the public interest

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 20 of 21

and fits within a plan that is also in the public interest so wants Requests for Proposals.Colorado’s Electric Resource Planning process provides an example of such a process thatincorporates more transparency-- requiring that a utility normally use a competitive acquisitionprocess to acquire new resources, that the utility retain an Independent Evaluator as part of theRFP process, that the utility file a written bidding policy, and that the utility file a report on thebids received in response to the RFP. See Colorado Electric Resource Planning Rules, 4 CCR723-3-3600 et seq.¯ CCAEiWRA support the addition RFP is important to ensure that the utility hasconsidered all feasible resources to meet its stated need and that the resource proposed is themost cost-effective option, and that the Commission should consider taking a broader look at theIRP process and how it relates to resource acquisition.

Final Order Amending Integrated ResourcePlanning RuleCase No. 17-00198-UT Page 21 of 21

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTSTO THE INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNINGRULES 17.7.3 NMAC

)))))

Case No. 17-00198-UT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order on

Integrated Resource Planning Rule Amendments, issued on January 10, 2018, was sent on

January 10, 2018 as indicated below, to the following:

Via Email to:Adam BickfordAdrian J. RodriguezAlicia ArmijoAllen DownsAmanda AldersonAmanda EdwardsAmy ShelhamerAnastasia StevensAndrea CraneAndrew HarrigerAnthony SisnerosAnthony TrujilloArnulfo CastanedaAthena ChristodoulouBenjamin LeybaBenjamin PhillipsBen LoweBobbie J. CollinsBradford Borman-PRCBrian J. HaverlyBriana TrujilloBruce ThroneCarla SonntagCarey SalazCasey Settles

abickford @swenergv.org;Adrian.rodriguez@epelectric.com;Aarmiio@nma~.gov;ecomaxac@lifeisgood2.com;aalderson@consultbai.com;AEdwards@lrrc.com;ashelhamer@courtne¥1awfirm.com;ast@keleher-law.com;Ctcolumbia@aol.com;a kharriger@sawvel.com;Anthon¥.Sisneros@state.nm.us;ait@gknet.com;acastaneda@cit¥ofanthonynm.com;Athena.solpowernm @gmail.com;blevba @noraelectric.org;Ben.phillips@ pnm resources.com;Ben.lowe@alevo.com;BCollins@lrrc.com;Bradford.borman@state.nmous;bih@keleher-law.com;BrianaG.Truiillo@state.nm.us;bthroneattyt~newmexico.com;Carla~nmusa.org;Carey.salaz@pnmresources.com;Casey.Settles@xcelener~v.com;

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 1

Charles F. NobleCharles GunterCharles PinsonCharles R. MooreCharles V. GarciaCholla Khoury, Esq.Chris KingChris MartinezChristine WrightClifford K. HoClyde F. WorthenCurtis HutchesonCydney BeadlesDahl HarrisDan NajjarDana S. HardyDaniel A. NajjarDave EfrossDavid AultDavid HinksonDavid LinkDavid SpradlinDavid Van WinkleDebrea TerwilligerDon HancockDoug GegaxDouglas HoweElaine HeltmanElisha.Leyba-TerceroEva TaylorEvan D. EvansFrank NovachekGary AlsupGary HurseGary RinkerGerard OrtizGermaine ChappelleGlenda MurphyGrieta GilchristHal GriegHeidi Pitts

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 2

Noble.ccae@gmail.com;Cha rles.Gunter@state.nm.us;cpinson @cvecooD.orl~;cmoore@navopacher.org;cl~arcia@cuddymccarth¥.com;Ckhourv@nmaR.l~ov;chris king@siemens.corn;chrism @. col-coop.corn;cwril~ht2 @solarcitv.com;ckho@sandia.gov;cfw@keleher-law.com;Curtis.Hutcheson @epelectric.com;Cyd ney.Beadles@state.nm.us;Dahlharris@ hotmail.com;vnaiiar@aol.com;dhardv@hinklelawfirm.com;vnaiiar@aol.com;Dave.Effross@westernresources.org;David.Ault@state.nm.us;David.hinkson@epelectric.com;dlink@raton~as.com;spradlin @sDrin~ercool~.com;david@vw77.com;dterwilli~er@wbklaw.com;sricdon@earthlink.net;dReRax@nmsu.edu;Dou~.howe@dhaconsultin~.us;EHeltman@nmaR.~ov;Elisha.leyba-Tercero@state.nm.us;Evataylor@cabcl.~OV;Evan.d.evans@xcelener~v.com;Fra n k.Novachek@xcelenerg¥.com;alsuplaw@plateautel.net;~hurse@Icecnet.com;grinker@swec-coop.orgGerard.ortiz@pnmresources.com;germaine.cha ppelle@l~knet.com;Gmurphv@westernresources.orR;Ggilchrist@rmifirm.com;h~rie~@l~latea utel.net;Heidi.pitts@state.nm.us;

Howard GellerJack SidlerJames D. AlbrightJames DauphinaisJames R. DittmerJames SchichtlJane YeeJason BurwenJason MarksJeffPollockJeffrey FornaciariJeffrey H. AlbrightJeffrey L. FornaciariJennifer HallJerry W. PartinJessica NanceJill TauberJim DittmerJimmy CappsJoan DrakeJody Kyler CohnJoe HerzJohn BoydJohn ReynoldsJon HawkinsJon WellinghoffJoseph HerreraJoseph YarJoshua L. SmithJudith AmerJuli GetchellJulie ParkJustin LeskyKatie Richardson, Ph.D.Katherine ColemanKelly CrandallKeven GroenewoldKevin AuerbacherKevin HigginsKim LegartKurt Boehm

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 3

hgeller@swenergv.orl~;Jack.Sidler@state.nm.us;jalbright@wbklaw.com;idauphinais@consultbai.com;i dittmer@utilitech.net;James.Schichtl@epelectric.com;Jyee@cabq.Rov;i.burwen@ener~ystora~e.or~;lawoffice@iasonmarks.com;icp@ipollockinc.com;ifornacia ri~ hinklelawfirm.com;JAIbri~ht@lrrc.com;ifornacia ri@hinklelawfirm.com;Jhall@mstlaw.com;pa rtin~@ rcec.coop;JNance@lrrc.comjira uber@ea rthiustice.or~;Jdittmer@ utilitech.net;~capps@secpower.com;idrake~modrall.com;J kylercohn@ BKLlawfirm.com;Jaherz@sawvel.com;iwb~fbdlaw.com;John.Reynolds@state.nm.us;Jon.hawkins@pnm.com;ion.wellin~hoff@stoel.com;iherrera @socorroelectric.com;iyar@nma~.~ov;~smith.watsonlawlc@~mail.com;J udith.Amer@state.nm.us;i~etchell@ solarcity.co m;iulie.park@state.nm.us;ilesky@leskylawoffice.com;Katie Richardson(~ Heinrich.Senate.Govkatie.colema n@tklaw.com;kcra ndall@kfwlaw.com;Kgroenewold @nmelectric.coop;ka uerbacher@solarcity.com;Khil~l~ins @enerl~vstrat.com;Kim.Lel~art@l~mail.com;Kboehm @ BKLlawfirm.com;

Kurt WihlKyle J. SmithLance AdkinsLaura E. Sanchez-RivetLeslie M. PadillaLes MontoyaLinda HudginsLisa HickeyLisa V. PerryLizbeth EllisLoretta BacaLoretta MartinezLorenzo NietoLuis ReyesMaj. Andrew J. UnsickerMarcia DriggersMariel NanasiMario ContrerasMario RomeroMark FentonMark GaiserMatthew CollinsMegan A. O’ReillyMelissa TrevinoMerrie Lee SoulesMichael I. GarciaMichael McElrathMichael SmithMilo ChavezNancy BumsNann M. WinterNatalie CepakNicole V. StrauserNikki JosephNoah LongNoel John SchaeferPatricia CardonaPatricia GriegoPerry RobinsonPeter AuhPeter Gould

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 4

kw@keleher-law.com;kyle.i.smith:124.civ@mail.mil;lance@fecnm.org;nancy.burns@epelectric.com;Ipadilla@dwmrlaw.com;LMontoya @morasanmiRuel.coop;linda.l.hudgins@xcelenergy.com;lisahickev@newlawl~roup.com;LPerrv@rQn.com;lellis@nmsu.edu;,LBaca@lrrc.com;Imartinez@nmaR.l~ov;Lorenzo.nieto@epelectric.com;Ireyes@kitca rson.com;Andrew.Unsicker@us.af.mil;marcvd @las-cruces.orl~;Mariel@seedsbeneaththesnow.com;Ma rio.a.contreras@xcelenerl~v.com;marior@ote-coop.com;Mark.fenton@pnmresources.com;Mark.Gaiser@state.nm.us;mcollins@cnmec.coop;arcresearcha ndanalvsis@l~mail.com;Melissa Trevino@oxv.com;mlsoules@hotmail.com;MikGarcia@bernco.gov;Michael McEIrath@fmi.com;michaelc.smith@state.nm.us;Milo.Chavez(a)state.nm.us;Nancy.burns@epelectric.com;nwinter@stelznerlaw.com;Natalie.Cepak.2@us.af.mil;nvstra user@tecoener~v.com;Niose13h@cabq.l~ov;nlonl~@nrdc.orl~;schaefno@gmail.com;patriciacardona24@yahoo.com;patricia.griel~o@epelectric.com;perry.robinson @urenco.com;Pauh@abcwua.or~dpl~ouldlaw@l~mail.com;

Phillip OldhamRalph CavanaghRamona BlaberRandall WoolridgeRandy ChildressRaymond HeymanRaymond L. GiffordRebecca CarterRichard AlvidrezRichard C. MertzRick GilliamRobert CastilloRobert ClarkRobert GarzaRobin GomezRocky BacchusRuth SakyaRyan JermanSandra Skogen-PRCSara GersenSarah BeckerShannon A. PardenSonya MaresStacey GoodwinStephen FogelSteve LuntSteven S. MichelSteven SchewebkeSteve W. ChrissSunny NixonThomas DommeThomas JemiganThomas ManningTom FigartTom SolomomTony A. GuruleTravis BlechaTravis RitchieWilliam R. Babington, Jr.William SteeleWilliam Templeman

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 5

phillip.oldham@tklaw.com;rcavanah@nrdc.org;Ramona.blaber@sierraclub.org;jrwoolridf~e@~mail.com;rand¥@childresslaw.com;rheyman@swlaw.com;rl~ifford@wbkl~w.com;racarter@tecoenergy.com;ralvidrez@mstlaw.com;Rcmertz7@outlook.com;Rick@votesolar.org;rcastillo@cdec.coop;rcla rk@ mstlaw.com;rl~arza @las-cruces.org;RGomez@LRRc.com;rockybacch us@gmail.com;ruth.m.sakya @xcelenerl~v.com;Ryan.Jerman@pnmresources.com;Sandra.Skogen@state.nm.us2sl~e rsen @ea rth iustice.org;Sarah.Becker@state.nm.us;Sparden@rmifirm.com;Smares@hinklelawfirm.com;Stace¥.goodwin@pnmresources.com;stephen.e.fogel@xcelener~v.com;stevel@dvec.org;Smichel@westernresources.org;Steven.schwebke@pnmresources.com;Stephen.Chriss@WaI-Ma rt.com;Snixon@rode¥.com;tdomme@tecoenergv.com;Thomas.Jerniga n.3 @us.af.mil;cfrecleanenerl~v@va hoo.com;tomf@donaanacount¥.org;tasolomon6@l~mail.com;TGurule@cabcl.l~ov;Travis.Blecha @state.nm.us;travis,ritchie @sierraclub.org;rbabin~ton@las-cruces.orl~;wa.steele@hotmail.com;wtempleman@cmtisantafe.com;

Zoe E. LeesGayle L. Gouker

zel@modrall.com;ggouker@navopache.orN;

Via U.S. Mail to:

Kathleen O’Dea, Esq.Jemez Mountains Electric CoopPO Box 6785Santa Fe, NM 87502

Michael M. Grant, Esq.Gallagher & Kennedy, PADuncan Valley Electric Coop2575 E. Camelback Rd.Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225

Mike Newell, Esq.Lea County Electric Coop, Inc.PO Drawer 1599Lovington, NM 88260

Gary Allsup, Esq.Southwestern Electric CoopPO Box 518Clayton, NM 88415

Wiggins, Williams & WigginsMora-San Miguel Electric Coop, Inc.Socorro Elec Coop, Inc.PO Box 1308Albuquerque, NM 87104

Dannelle J. Smith, Esq.Springer Electric Coop, Inc.PO Box 1811Las Vegas, NM 87701

Bret J. Slocum, Esq.Casey Wren, Esq.Duggings Wren Mann & Romero,LLP.P.O. Box 1149Austin, TX 78767

S. Thomas Overstreet, Esq.Otero County Electric Coop, Inc.1011 New YorkAlamogordo, NM 88310

Kevin HigginsEnergy Strategies215 S. State Street, Suite 200Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 6

DATED this 10th day of January 2018.

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

K~thl~’i~nM. S~’gura: Law/Cle~rki i .... ~"

Certificate of ServiceCase No. 17-00198-UTPage 7

17.7.3 NMAC 1

TITLE 17 PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UTILITY SERVICES CHAPTER 7 ENERGY CONSERVATION PART 3 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANS FOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES 17.7.3.1 ISSUING AGENCY: New Mexico Public Regulation Commission. [17.7.3.1 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007] 17.7.3.2 SCOPE: This rule applies to all electric utilities subject to the commission’s jurisdiction over integrated resource planning. A. Impact on Other Rules. Except as specifically provided herein, this rule does not supersede any other rule of the commission but is to be construed as a supplement to such rules. B. Severability. If any part or application of this rule is held invalid, the remainder of its application shall not be affected. [17.7.3.2 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007] 17.7.3.3 STATUTORY AUTHORITY: This rule is adopted under the authority vested in this commission by the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission Act, Section 8-8-15 NMSA 1978; the Public Utility Act, Section 62-3-1 NMSA 1978, et seq.; and the Efficient Use of Energy Act, Section 62-17-1 NMSA 1978, et seq. [17.7.3.3 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007; A, 8/29/2017] 17.7.3.4 DURATION: Permanent. [17.7.3.4 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007] 17.7.3.5 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 16, 2007, unless a later date is cited at the end of a section. [17.7.3.5 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007] 17.7.3.6 OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this rule is to set forth the commission’s requirements for the preparation, filing, review and acceptance of integrated resource plans by public utilities supplying electric service in New Mexico in order to identify the most cost effective portfolio of resources to supply the energy needs of customers. For resources whose costs and service quality are equivalent, the utility should prefer resources that minimize environmental impacts. [17.7.3.6 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007] 17.7.3.7 DEFINITIONS: When used in this rule, unless otherwise specified the following definitions will apply: A. availability factor means the ratio of the time a generating facility is available to produce energy at its rated capacity, to the total amount of time in the period being measured; B. capacity factor means the ratio of the net energy produced by a generating facility during a given time period, to the amount of net energy that could have been produced if the facility operated continuously at full capacity during that same time period; C. demand-side resources means energy efficiency and load management, as those terms are defined in the Efficient Use of Energy Act; D. energy efficiency means measures, including energy conservation measures, or programs that target consumer behavior, equipment or devices to result in a decrease in consumption of electricity without reducing the amount or quality of energy services; E. energy storage resource means a commercially available technology that is capable of absorbing energy, storing it for a period of time, and thereafter delivering the energy; F. heat rate means the ratio of energy inputs used by a generating facility expressed in BTUs (British thermal units), to the energy output of that facility expressed in kilowatt-hours; G. integrated resource plan (IRP) means a public utility’s plan to meet New Mexico jurisdictional retail customers’ existing and future demand in accordance with this rule; H. load forecasting means the prediction of the demand for electricity over the planning period for the utility; I. load management means measures or programs that target equipment or devices to decrease peak electricity demand or shift demand from peak to off-peak periods;

17.7.3 NMAC 2

J. most cost effective resource portfolio means those supply-side resources and demand-side resources that minimize the net present value of revenue requirements proposed by the utility to meet electric system demand during the planning period consistent with reliability and risk considerations; K. planning period means the future period for which a utility develops its IRP; for purposes of this rule, the planning period is 20 years; L. public utility or utility has the same meaning as in the Public Utility Act, except that it does not include a distribution cooperative utility, as defined in the Efficient Use of Energy Act; M. renewable energy means electrical energy generated by means of a low or zero emissions generation technology with substantial long-term production potential and generated by use of renewable energy resources that may include solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, fuel cells that are not fossil fueled and biomass resources; biomass resources are fuels, such as agriculture or animal waste, small diameter timber, salt cedar and other phreatophyte or woody vegetation removed from river basins or watersheds in New Mexico, landfill gas and anaerobically digested waste biomass; renewable energy does not include fossil fuel or nuclear energy. [17.7.3.7 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007; A, 8/29/2017] 17.7.3.8 GENERAL PROVISIONS: The commission adopts this rule in order to fulfill the requirements of Section 62-17-10 NMSA 1978. [17.7.3.8 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007; A, 8/29/2017] 17.7.3.9 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANS FOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES: Public utilities supplying electric service to customers shall file an IRP, along with an action plan, with the commission every three years. A. Initial filings. Utilities with greater than 200,000 New Mexico retail customers shall file 15 months after the effective date of this rule. Utilities with less than 200,000 New Mexico retail customers shall file 27 months after the effective date of this rule. An original and fourteen copies of the IRP shall be filed with the commission. B. Contents of IRP for electric utilities. The IRP submitted by an electric utility shall contain the utility’s New Mexico jurisdictional: (1) description of existing electric supply-side and demand-side resources; (2) current load forecast as described in this rule; (3) load and resources table; (4) identification of resource options; (5) description of the resource and fuel diversity; (6) identification of critical facilities susceptible to supply-source or other failures; (7) determination of the most cost effective resource portfolio and alternative portfolios; (8) description of public advisory process; (9) action plan; and (10) other information that the utility finds may aid the commission in reviewing the utility’s planning processes. C. Description of existing resources. The utility’s description of its existing resources used to serve its jurisdictional retail load at the time the IRP is filed shall include: (1) name(s) and location(s) of utility-owned generation facilities; (2) rated capacity of utility-owned generation facilities; (3) fuel type, heat rates, annual capacity factors and availability factors projected for utility-owned generation facilities over the planning period; (4) cost information, including capital costs, fixed and variable operating and maintenance costs, fuel costs, and purchased power costs; (5) existing generation facilities’ expected retirement dates; (6) amount of capacity obtained or to be obtained through existing purchased power contracts or agreements relied upon by the utility, including the fuel type, if known, and contract duration; (7) estimated in-service dates for utility-owned generation facilities for which a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CCN) has been granted but which are not in-service; (8) amount of capacity and, if applicable, energy, provided annually to the utility pursuant to wheeling agreements and the duration of such wheeling agreements; (9) description of existing demand-side resources, including (a) demand-side resources deployed at the time the IRP is filed; and

17.7.3 NMAC 3

(b) demand-side resources approved by the commission, but not yet deployed at the time the IRP is filed; information provided concerning existing demand-side resources shall include, at a minimum, the expected remaining useful life of each demand-side resource and the energy savings and reductions in peak demand, as appropriate, made by the demand-side resource. (10) description of each existing and approved energy storage resources, to include, at a minimum, the expected remaining useful life of the resource, its maximum capacity and dispatch characteristics, and operating costs; (11) reserve margin and reserve reliability requirements (e.g. FERC, power pool, etc.) with which the utility must comply and the methodology used to calculate its reserve margin; (12) existing transmission capabilities: (a) the utility shall report its existing, and under-construction, transmission facilities of 115 kV and above, including associated switching stations and terminal facilities; the utility shall specifically identify the location and extent of transfer capability limitations on its transmission network that may affect the future siting of supply-side resources; (b) the utility shall describe all transmission planning or coordination groups to which it is a party, including state and regional transmission groups, transmission companies, and coordinating councils with which the utility may be associated. (13) environmental impacts of existing supply-side resources: (a) the utility shall provide the percentage of kilowatt-hours generated by each fuel used by the utility on its existing system, for the latest year for which such information is available; (b) to the extent feasible, for each existing supply-side resource on its system, the utility shall present emission rates (expressed in pounds emitted per kilowatt-hour generated) of criteria pollutants as well as carbon dioxide and mercury; (c) to the extent feasible, for each existing supply-side resource on its system, the utility shall present the water consumption rate. (14) a summary of back-up fuel capabilities and options. D. Current load forecast. (1) The utility shall provide a load forecast for each year of the planning period; the load forecast shall incorporate the following information and projections: (a) annual sales of energy and coincident peak demand on a system-wide basis, by customer class, and disaggregated among commission jurisdictional sales, FERC jurisdictional sales, and sales subject to the jurisdiction of other states; (b) annual coincident peak system losses and the allocation of such losses to the transmission and distribution components of the system; (c) weather normalization adjustments; (d) assumptions for economic and demographic factors relied on in load forecasting; (e) expected capacity and energy impacts of existing and proposed demand-side resources; and (f) typical historic day or week load patterns on a system-wide basis for each major customer class. (2) The utility shall develop base-case, high-growth and low-growth forecasts, or an alternative forecast that provides an assessment of uncertainty (e.g., probabilistic techniques). (3) Required detail. (a) The utility shall explain how the demand-side savings attributable to actions other than the utility-sponsored demand-side resources for each major customer class are accounted for in the utility’s load forecast and the effect, as appropriate, on its load forecast of the utility-sponsored demand-side resources on each major customer class. (b) The utility shall compare the annual forecast of coincident peak demand and energy sales made by the utility to the actual coincident peak demand and energy sales experienced by the utility for the four years preceding the year in which the plan under consideration is filed. In addition, the utility shall compare the annual forecast in its most recently filed resource plan to the annual forecast in the current resource plan. In its initial IRP filing, the utility shall provide information demonstrating how well its forecasts during the preceding four years predicted demand. (c) The utility shall explain and document the assumptions, methodologies, and any other inputs upon which it relied to develop its load forecast.

17.7.3 NMAC 4

E. Load and resources table. The utility shall provide a load and resources table of its existing loads and resources at the time of its IRP filing. The load and resources table, to the extent practical, shall contain the appropriate components from the load forecast. Resources shall include: (1) utility-owned generation; (2) energy storage resources; (3) existing and future contracted-for purchased power including qualifying facility purchases; (4) purchases through net metering programs, as appropriate; (5) demand-side resources, as appropriate; and (6) other resources relied upon by the utility, such as pooling, wheeling, or coordination agreements effective at the time the plan is filed. F. Identification of resource options. (1) In identifying additional resource options, the utility shall consider all feasible supply-side, energy storage, and demand-side resources. The utility shall describe in its plan those resources it evaluated for selection to its portfolio and the assumptions and methodologies used in evaluating its resource options, including, as applicable: life expectancy of the resources, the recognition of whether the resource is replacing/adding capacity or energy, dispatchability, lead-time requirements, flexibility and efficiency of the resource. (2) For supply-side resource options, the utility shall identify the assumptions actually used for capital costs, fixed and variable operating and maintenance costs, fuel costs forecast by year, and purchased power demand and energy charges forecast by year, fuel type, heat rates, annual capacity factors, availability factors and, to the extent feasible, emission rates (expressed in pounds emitted per kilowatt-hour generated) of criteria pollutants as well as carbon dioxide and mercury. (3) The utility shall describe its existing rates and tariffs that incorporate load management or load shifting concepts. The utility shall also describe how changes in rate design might assist in meeting, delaying or avoiding the need for new capacity. G. Determination of the most cost effective resource portfolio and alternative portfolios. (1) To identify the most cost-effective resource portfolio, utilities shall evaluate all feasible supply, energy storage, and demand-side resource options on a consistent and comparable basis, and take into consideration risk and uncertainty (including but not limited to financial, competitive, reliability, operational, fuel supply, price volatility and anticipated environmental regulation). The utility shall evaluate the cost of each resource through its projected life with a life-cycle or similar analysis. The utility shall also consider and describe ways to mitigate ratepayer risk. (2) Each electric utility shall provide a summary of how the following factors were considered in, or affected, the development of resource portfolios: (a) load management and energy efficiency requirements; (b) renewable energy portfolio requirements; (c) existing and anticipated environmental laws and regulations, and, if determined by the commission, the standardized cost of carbon emissions; (d) fuel diversity; (e) susceptibility to fuel interdependencies; (f) transmission constraints; and (g) system reliability and planning reserve margin requirements. (3) Alternative portfolios. In addition to the detailed description of what the utility determines to be the most cost-effective resource portfolio, the utility shall develop a reasonable number of alternative portfolios by altering risk assumptions and other parameters developed by the utility and the public advisory process. H. Public advisory process. Public input is critical to the development and implementation of integrated resource planning in New Mexico. A utility shall incorporate a public advisory process in the development of its IRP. At least one year prior to the filing date of its IRP, a utility shall initiate a public advisory process to develop its IRP. The purpose of this process shall be to receive public input, solicit public commentary concerning resource planning and related resource acquisition issues. This process shall be administered as follows. (1) The utility shall initiate the process by providing notice at least 30 days prior to the first scheduled meeting to the commission, interveners in its most recent general rate case, and participants in its most recent renewable energy, energy efficiency and IRP proceedings; the utility shall at the same time, also publish this notice in a newspaper of general circulation in every county which it serves and in the utility’s billing inserts; this notice shall consist of:

17.7.3 NMAC 5

(a) a brief description of the IRP process; (b) time, date and location of the first meeting; (c) a statement that interested individuals should notify the utility of their interest in participating in the process; and (d) utility contact information. (2) Upon receipt of the initial notice, the commission may designate a facilitator to assist the participants with dispute resolution. (3) The utility or its designee shall chair the public participation process, schedule meetings, and develop agendas for these meetings. With adequate notice to the utility, participants shall be allowed to place items on the agenda of public participation process meetings. (4) Meetings held as part of the public participation process shall be noticed and scheduled on a regular basis and shall be open to members of the public who shall be heard and their input considered as part of the public participation process. Upon request, the utility shall provide an executive summary containing a non-technical description of its most recent IRP. (5) The purposes of the public participation process are for the utility to provide information to, and receive and consider input from, the public regarding the development of its IRP. Topics to be discussed as part of the public participation process include, but are not limited to, the utility’s load forecast; evaluation of existing supply- and demand-side resources; the assessment of need for additional resources; identification of resource options; modeling and risk assumptions and the cost and general attributes of potential additional resources; and development of the most cost-effective portfolio of resources for the utility’s IRP. (6) In its initial IRP advisory process, the utility and participants shall explore a procedure to coordinate the IRP process with renewable energy procurement plans and energy efficiency and load management program proposals. Any proposed procedure shall be designed to conserve commission, participant and utility resources and shall indicate what, if any, variances may be needed to effectuate the proposed procedure. I. Action plan. (1) The utility’s action plan shall detail the specific actions the utility will take to implement the integrated resource plan spanning a four-year period following the filing of the utility’s IRP. The action plan will include a status report of the specific actions contained in the previous action plan. (2) An action plan does not replace or supplant any requirements for applications for approval of resource additions set forth in New Mexico law or commission regulations. [17.7.3.9 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007; A, 12-31-12, A 8/29/2017] 17.7.3.10 OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY OF MATERIAL CHANGES AND UPDATE ACTION PLAN: The utility shall promptly notify the commission and participants of material events that would have the effect of changing the results of the utility’s IRP had those events been recognized when the IRP was developed. As part of this notification, the utility shall explain how this event(s) has changed the action plan. [17.7.3.10 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007] 17.7.3.11 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION: The utility may submit any portions of its IRP under seal to the extent the utility deems specific information to be confidential. The utility shall seek a protective order under Subsection B of 17.1.2.8 NMAC for those portions of its IRP it considers confidential, and the utility shall have the burden of proving its right to such protection. Any information submitted under seal pursuant to this paragraph shall remain under seal for a period of two years, after which time it shall become public unless the utility seeks and obtains further protection from the commission. Information submitted under seal shall be available for review by the commission and its designated representatives and by any person who has entered into a confidentiality agreement with the utility in a form approved by commission order. [17.7.3.11 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007; A, 8/29/2017] 17.7.3.12 COMMISSION REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE AND ACTION: The commission will review the utility’s proposed IRP for compliance with the procedures and objectives set forth herein. Written public comments may be filed within 20 days of the utility’s filing of the proposed IRP in support or in opposition of the proposed IRP as filed. The utility shall file, within 40 days of the utility’s filing of the proposed IRP, a written response to all written public comments that were timely filed in support or in opposition, stating whether or not it will incorporate any of the written comments into its proposed IRP and state its reasons why or why not. The commission’s utility division staff shall review the utility’s proposed IRP as filed and shall consider the filed written public comments in support or in opposition and the utility’s written response and shall file a written recommendation to the commission

17.7.3 NMAC 6

within 60 days of utility’s filing as to whether or not the IRP complies with the procedures and objectives of this rule and whether or not it recommends that the commission accept the proposed IRP as filed. If the commission has not acted within 90 days after the filing of the proposed IRP, that IRP is deemed accepted as compliant with this rule. If the commission determines the proposed IRP does not comply with the requirements of this rule, the commission will identify the deficiencies and return it to the utility with instructions for re-filing. [17.7.3.12 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007; A, 8/29/2017; A, 01/30/2018] 17.7.3.13 ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS AND INFORMATION: The commission may conduct an investigation of any matters pertaining to a public utility’s IRP where it deems appropriate and may require additional information to be filed. [17.7.3.13 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007] 17.7.3.14 EXEMPTIONS: A. Motion for Exemption from Rule. Upon motion by a utility and for good cause shown, the commission may exempt public utilities with fewer than five thousand customers and distribution-only public utilities from the requirements of this rule. B. Multi-State Resource Planning: The commission shall take into account a public utility’s resource planning requirements in other states and shall authorize utilities that operate in multiple states to implement plans that coordinate the applicable state resource planning requirements. [17.7.3.14 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007] 17.7.3.15 VARIANCES AND AMENDMENTS: A utility may file a request for a variance from the requirements of this rule. Such application shall describe the situation which necessitates the variance; set out the effect of complying with this rule on the utility and its customers if the variance is not granted; identify the section(s) of this rule for which the variance is requested; describe the expected result which the request will have if granted; and state how the variance will aid in achieving the purposes of this rule. The commission may grant a request for a procedural variance through an order issued by the chairman, a commissioner or a designated hearing examiner. Other variances shall be presented to the commission as a body for determination. [17.7.3.15 NMAC - N, 4/16/2007] HISTORY of 17.7.3 NMAC: Pre-NMAC History: The material in this part was derived from that previously filed with the state records center and archives under: Public Service Commission, NMPSC Rule 420, Energy Conservation Programs For Electric and Gas Utilities, filed 06-30-1988. History of Repealed Material: NMPSC Rule 420, Energy Conservation Programs For Electric and Gas Utilities (filed 06-30-1988) repealed 4/16/2007. Other History: Only that applicable portion of NMPSC Rule 420, Energy Conservation Programs For Electric and Gas Utilities (filed 06-30-1988) was renumbered, reformatted and replaced by 17.7.3 NMAC, Integrated Resource Plans for Electric Utilities, effective 4/16/2007.

7/1 /2017

NMACTransmittal FormVolume: Issue: Publication Date: Number of pages: (ALD Use Only)

Sequence No.

Issuing agency name and address: Agency DFA code:

Contact person’s name: Phone number: E-mail address:

Type of rule action: (ALD Use Only) Most Recent Filing Date:

New Amendment Repeal Repeal/Replace Renumber Emergency

Title number: Title name:

Chapter number: Chapter name:

Part number: Part name:

Amendment Description (If filing an Amendment): Amendment’s NMAC Citation (If filing an Amendment):

Are there any materials incorporated by reference? Please list attachments or Internet sites if applicable.

Yes No

If materials are attached, has copyright permission been received? Yes No Public domain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concise Explanatory Statement for rulemaking adoption: Notice date : Hearing date : Rule Adoption date: Rule Effective date:

Specific statutory or other authority authorizing rulemaking:

Findings required for rulemaking adoption. Please attach and sign additional page(s) if necessary.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Issuing authority (If delegated, authority letter must be on file with ALD): Name: Check if authority has been delegated

Title:

Signature: (BLACK ink only) Date signed:

XXIX 2 01-30-2018 1

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION 43000

Kathleen M. Segura 595-827-4501 Kathleen.segura1@state.nm.us

17 PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UTILITY SERVICES

7 ENERGY CONSERVATION

3 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANS FOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES

Compliance Review 17.7.3.12

08/20/17; 08/27/17; 11/15/17 November 15, 2017 01/10/2018 01/30/18

NM Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 2; NMSA 1978, Sec. 8-8-4(B)(10); NMSA 1978, Sec. 62-17-1, et. seq.

1. The Commission’s IRP Rule was adopted in 2007 to implement the 2005 Efficient Use of Energy Act (EUEA), NMSA § 62-17-1 et seq. The IRP Rule, following the EUEA, require that investor-owned electric utilities engage in a resource planning process that evaluates all feasible supply side and demand side resources on a comparable and consistent basis. 2. On August 8, 2017, the Commission issued its Order Initiating Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “NOPR”) and attached a copy of the proposed amendments to the IRP Rule (the “Proposed Amendments”), under the authority of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission Act, Section 8-8-15 NMSA 1978; the Public Utility Act, Section 62-3-1 NMSA 1978, et seq.; and the Efficient Use of Energy Act, Section 62-17-1 NMSA 1978, et seq. 3. The NOPR constituted due and lawful notice to all potentially interested persons. 4. The NOPR stated that Section 62-17-10 of the EUEA (2005), entitled Integrated resource planning provides in pertinent part: “Pursuant to the commission's rulemaking authority, public utilities supplying electric or natural gas service to customers shall periodically file an integrated resource plan with the commission. Utility integrated resource plans shall evaluate renewable energy, energy efficiency, load management, distributed generation and conventional supply-side resources on a consistent and comparable basis and take into consideration risk and uncertainty of fuel supply, price volatility and costs of anticipated environmental regulations in order to identify the most cost-effective portfolio of resources to supply the energy needs of customers…” 5. The NOPR found that it should amend the IRP Rule 17.7.3.12.B NMAC to delete or amend Section 12 (B), Use in Resource Acquisition Proceeding for the following reasons: Section 12 (B) states that a Commission-accepted IR Plan (without any material changes) is granted a presumption that included resource types are necessary in subsequent resource acquisition proceedings or subsequent application proceedings for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (“CCN”). The NOPR found that presumption was not contemplated by Section 62-17-10 of the EUEA which expressly states that the IRP is a planning tool. The plain meaning of the word “plan” is a proposed or intended course of action or an orderly or step by step conception or proposal for accomplishing an objective or a set of decisions about how to do something in the future. Further, the NOPR stated that at the time the IR Plan is accepted by the Commission, the Plan contains only proposed or intended resource types. Therefore, the Commission-accepted IR Plan, and its stated resource types, are not necessarily proof or prima facie evidence, that the stated resource types (not the particular resource being proposed) are required by the public convenience and necessity. For this reason, the NOPR proposed to amend the IRP Rule and proposed that Section 12 (B) be deleted or amended to comport with the express and plain meaning of the word “plan” in Section 62-17-10 of the EUEA.

✔

✔

83.3

8/17/2017

7/1 /2017

Concise Explanatory Statement for rulemaking adoption:

Page number ___ of ___ for Findings required for rulemaking adoption.

Issuing authority (If delegated, authority letter must be on file with ALD): Name: Check if authority has been delegated

Title:

Signature: (BLACK ink only) Date signed:

Concise statement -- Removal of Section 12 B. complies with Section 62-17-10 of the Efficient Use of Energy Act because the presumption of prima facie evidence in a subsequent resource acquisition proceeding was not contemplated by which expressly states that the IRP is a planning tool. Section12 B goes beyond the purpose of the IRP as a planning tool and never intended the IRP process become a substitute for Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. Section 12(B) created value in the IRP that was not initially envisioned in the EUEA and in Rule 17.7.3, and this has resulted in confusion and uncertainty as to how much credence should be placed on a utility's IRP, what it means for an IRP to be "accepted" or not, and what exactly it means to have a resource type included in an IRP, or not. The proposed deletion will add some clarity to these questions that will benefit all participants in the IRP process. The suggestion of PNM, supported by EPE and SPS, to remove the hearing and protest provision has merit for the reasons stated in the Final Order. However, the public participation requires that the rule should permit public comments in support or in opposition to the utility’s proposed IRP filing after it is filed. In addition, it would be beneficial to the Commission and in the public interest for Staff to file a recommendation stating whether or not the proposed IRP filing made by the utility complies with the Rule’s purpose and objectives.

2 2

CPR - ALD 7/13/2017

Instructions for Completing the NMAC TRANSMITTAL FORM

Your agency must complete the following:

Volume, Issue and Publication Date. Example: Volume: XXVIII , Issue: 19, Publication date: October 17, 2017.

Provide the total number of pages of the paper version of the new rule, amendment, repeal or repeal and replacement document. Note: Do not include transmittal form, billing sheet, PO, etc.

Sequence number is for ALD use only.

Issuing agency’s name and mailing address.

Agency’s 3-digit DFA code. Example: 123.

Contact person’s Name, Phone number, E-mail address.

Check one type of rule action: New, Amendment, Repeal, Repeal & Replace, Renumber, or Emergency.

Most Recent Filing Date of the Part for ALD use only.

Identify NMAC Title, Chapter and Part numbers and identify the NMAC Title, Chapter and Part names. Example: Title 19 Natural Resources and Wildlife Chapter 30 Wildlife Administration Part 14 Aquatic Invasive Species.

Description of Amendment: (if amending) Example: “Amending three sections”.

Amendment’s NMAC citation: (if amending) Example: Sections 9 and 18 of 7.1.13 NMAC.

Are any materials incorporated by reference? Check: Yes or No. If yes, please list attachments or provide Internet site.

If incorporated, has copyright permission been granted? Check Yes or No or check if document is in the public domain.

Concise Explanatory Statement for rulemaking adoption: Provide your Notice date(s): Hearing date(s): Rule adoption date: Rule effective date: Please note, that there must be at least 30 days between the Notice date and Hearing date. Also, your agency must file your rule within 15 days from Rule adoption date. Lastly, unless your rule is an emergency filing, the Rule effective date cannot be any earlier than the publication date in the New Mexico Register. If there is any discrepancy as to any of these dates, your rulemaking WILL NOT be accepted for filing and will be REJECTED.

Your agency’s specific statutory or other authority authorizing rulemaking: Check with your agency general counsel office to determine the correct citation(s) authorizing your agency to make rules.

Findings required for rulemaking adoption. Please attach and sign additional page(s) if necessary: Please check with your agency general counsel office regarding these findings or if additional pages need to be attached. Examples: “This rule amendment has been amended to include public comments received at public hearing.”; or, “This rulemaking was begun and has been adopted under the old version of the State Rules Act, prior to July 1, 2017.”; or, “This rulemaking was undertaken as a result to changes to federal regulations, 7 CFR Part 225.”

Issuing Authority: Name, Title Date signed and original Signature of issuing authority or their delegate in black ink: Note: If authority has been delegated, this box shall be checked. A letter of delegation must be on file with the State Records Center and Archives, Administrative Law Division.