Motion for Leave to Intervene

Motion for Leave to Intervene in Case No. 11-00123-UT

William H Payne, author of Alternate Report, Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027 and David B. McCoy, Executive Director, Citizen Action New Mexico in compliance with NMAC 1.2.2.23A hereby request leave to intervene in the above captioned case.

NMAC 1.2.2.23 provides as follows: 1.2.2.23 INTERVENORS AND COMMENTERS: A. Intervention: Any person other than staff and the original parties to a proceeding who desires to become a party to the proceeding may move in writing for leave to intervene in the proceeding.

(1) The motion for leave to intervene shall indicate the nature of the movant’s interest in the proceeding.

(2) The motion shall also comply with the provisions of this rule governing pleadings except that the motion shall indicate the facts relied upon as grounds for intervention.

(3) Motions for leave to intervene shall be served on all existing parties and other proposed intervenors of record.

1 Movants' interest is to bring to attention to the proceedings, the public and PNM rate payers possible [subsidization of large-scale solar generation of electricity by PNM rate increases] that are not authorized by New Mexico renewable energy mandates. which may be subsidized by PNM rate increases. The rate increases to provide large scale solar generation are not justifiable based on a competent scientific analysis for efficiency and cost related to alternatives for the proposed period of the rate increase.

2 The facts relied upon are as follow: Fact 1 relies upon the misleading justification for the rate raise presented in the statement in paragraph 5 of the NOTICE OF PROCEEDING AND HEARING. PNM states that its 2008 IRP showed that energy efficiency reduced the need for future generation plant additions and that the costs for capacity and energy that can be avoided through energy efficiency and demand management programs could result in a $390 Million net present value savings over the 20-year planning period. PNM load forecaster Mr Steve Martin identified sources of demand for electricity on August 21, 2007, PNM Alvarado Square, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Mr Martin's foils [?? EXPLAIN] were not included in the about 1 7/8 pound official report.

The curtailment or reduction for the sources of electricity demand identified by Mr Martin should be addressed as an alternative to be taken along with implementation of energy efficiency and demand management

Abstract [?? IDENTIFY] explains reason for Alternate Report: Electric Integrated Resource Plan for the Period 2008-2027 Official Electric Integrated Resource Plan [IRP] for the Period 2008- 2027 appears to be a product of a verbal faction of attendees for approximately 17 sessions. Omission of what others consider important foils from Official report and elimination of which, we feel, are unessential foils in about 229 page report is an obligation to others to write an alternate report. Failure of the Official report to forecast available source of heat [BTUs] which is to be converted to electricity and to address the sources of increased demand, and to make practical arguments for feasibility of natural gas and alternate energy sources renders the Official Report about unusable.

2 Fact 2 asserts that Heat Rate does not apply to concentrated solar power (CSP) or Photovoltaic generation of electricity. And wind too.

PNM Director for Advanced Generation Development, Mr Greg Nelson and engineer Frank Currie both state in writing that Heat Rate only applies to electricity generation from combustible sources.

The position of the PNM Director regarding heat rate as only applicable to electric generation from combustible resources is incorrect. Heat rate also encompasses the conversion efficiency of the system with whatever is the heat input: Mr Jake Rudisill, Vice President, Operation and Project Management of Meridian Energy USA emailed From: "Jake Rudisill" [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:37:20 PM Subject: Heat Rate misconception

Mr. Payne,

The definition of heat rate is not the heat content of just the fossil fuel inputting the conversion system—it is the conversion efficiency of the system with whatever is the heat input. ...

We have been in the process, so far unsuccessful, of trying to determine who is right.

[Resolution of the heat rate issue is important from the standpoint of justification for the rate increase that is being requested and will be used for large scale solar generation technology. ???]

[PNM has not provided a cost analysis of the efficiency of the provision of solar based generation of electricity in comparison with the available alternatives on any scientifically recognizable basis. ??]

3 Fact 3 Liberal arts 'educated' From: “Jason Marks, PRC” [email protected] To: [email protected], “David King, PRC” [email protected], “Jerome D Block, PRC” [email protected]>, [email protected], “Sandy Jones, PRC” [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], “Staci Matlock” [email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:12:09 AM Subject: Re: Large-scale solar generation of electricity fraud in New mexico?

Mr Payne:

I don’t understand your concerns. There are two basic solar electric technologies: photovoltaic panels (PV) and thermal concentrating solar power (CSP). The development and deployment in NM is focused on PV. Hundreds of homeowners with installed PV systems can tell you that their systems produce electricity in line with specifications, as proved by meters. You (either an individual or a utility) buy a solar system for a certain price, you install it, and it generates electricity for 20 or 30 years or so, with minimal operating and maintenance costs. There are no fuel requirements (and thus no “heat rate”). When you spread the upfront costs over the system’s lifetime electric production and adjust for tax credits and REC incentives, you arrive at the cost per kwh. You get to decide if you think that cost per kwh is reasonable before you make the investment. There is no fraud.

Jason Marks may be incorrect and possiblly involved in large-scale solar genernation of electricty fraud?

PNM has not provided an analysis of the breakdown for private installation, i.e., by homeowners and businesses, of solar electric generation systems to provide a need and cost analysis for installation of solar generation installation by PNM. The issue of the efficiency and costs of onsite localized generation of solar electricity versus the comparative efficiency and costs of construction of centralized production and the transmission have not been considered relevant to the rate increase. [??]

Additionally, the alternative for reduction of electrical usage by geothermal development for new construction that would be available over the time period [through 2027?] has not been addressed.

The above facts support the conclusion that the evidence for the rate increase is incomplete, incorrect and has not considered actual efficiencies and production costs related to existing alternatives. Peer review has not been performed for the PNM assumptions that no analysis for the factors of heat rate {and???] is necessary. weighed by honest technically-competent and other thinking people whose written decision are subject to international review and comment to reach proper conclusion on PNM rate increases?

Submitted June 24, 2011 by certified mail.

______William H Payne ______David B McCoy