- The Supreme Court has dismissed the power companies’ claims that the 2021 Chinese ruling was arbitrary, inconsistent and unreasonable.
- A PNM spokeswoman said the decision would only delay the exit from the utility’s facilities and delay cutting carbon emissions from coal.
- Sierra Club lawyers characterized the decision as a win for PNM clients.
Various indigenous and environmental groups support the state’s refusal of a request by the New Mexico Public Service Company to transfer its interest in Fruitland’s Four Corners power plant to Fruitland owners. Praised the July 6 ruling of the New Mexico Supreme Court. factory coal mine.
But a PNM spokesman said the decision would only delay the exit from the utility’s facilities and delay cutting carbon emissions from coal.
PNM had sought to transfer a 13% stake in the coal-fired power plant to the Navajo Interim Energy Company by the end of 2024. The move was denied by the New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission in 2021, and a Supreme Court ruling upholds that denial. in place.
Supreme Court finds China’s ruling arbitrary that PNM officials failed to specify alternatives to generating electricity at the Four Corners plant, as required by New Mexico’s Energy Transition Act, was arbitrary. dismissed the claim. , inconsistent and absurd.
Matt Gerhart, Senior Counsel for the Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program, characterized the decision as a win for PNM clients.
“PNM sought to prevent the commission from reviewing hundreds of millions of dollars in customer funds that PNM poured into its expensive and polluting Four Corners power plant,” he said in a news release. Stated. “The Commission can now undertake its review and hopefully hold PNM accountable for its wasteful spending at Four Corners.”
PNM spokesman Raymond Sandoval said the utility was disappointed with the decision.
“The European Commission’s order postpones PNM’s exit from coal-fired power plants from 2024 to possibly 2031, as well as the significant annual carbon reduction from coal through customer savings and seasonal operations.” said in a statement issued by the company. “Our commitment to serving our customers with zero-carbon power continues. An early exit from the Four Corners coal-fired power plant will propel us forward while moving towards affordable carbon-free power. We remain committed to the transition of
Robin Jackson, executive director of Dine Care, a Window Rock, Arizona-based nonprofit that works with Navajo communities facing energy and environmental challenges, welcomed the court’s ruling.
“Today’s decision protects New Mexico ratepayers and Navajo people by not allowing unregulated companies to face huge decommissioning and cleanup costs at the end of their facility’s useful life. ‘, she said in a statement released by the group. “NTEC’s deal was never in the Navajo’s best interest and did not require Navajo approval,” she said.
Jackson also said the decision would not shift PNM’s responsibility to ensure the plant’s decommissioning and site remediation, as required by San Juan County ordinance.
Former China Commissioner Jason Marks, who defended the Sierra Club’s Rio Grande lawsuit before the Supreme Court and the Commission, said the ruling was a significant setback for the proposed PNM/NTEC deal. The Sierra Club intervened in the Chinese case, arguing that PNM’s proposed deal with NTEC would keep the coal plant running for years longer than necessary.
“According to PNM documents, the utility knew that the proper way to exit its stake in the wasteful and polluting Four Corners power plant was to phase it out, either in whole or in part. , under pressure … planned a deal that PNM planned to close the deal, which, conversely, would make it much more difficult to shut down the factory,” he said in a news release.
Wendy Attiti, Indigenous Energy Program Manager for Naeba, an Albuquerque-based organization that champions Native American working families and principles of social, economic, and environmental justice, said Indigenous communities have been with us for more than 50 years. , said it has suffered from the effects of emissions from its power plants. .
“NTEC wanted to treat this toxic contamination at Four Corners with coal from the mine,” she said in a statement released by the organization. “That idea is over because this decision ensures protection from NTEC conflicts of interest for our tribal communities.”
Camila Fabelmann, director of the Sierra Club’s Rio Grande chapter, said the court’s decision is a victory for the Energy Transition Act’s objectives to reduce climate pollution and protect customers.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling means PNM cannot charge customers to keep their loss-making, climate-damaging factories running to their end of life,” she said in a news release.
The power station is operated by the Arizona Public Service Company, which is also the majority owner.
Contact Mike Easterling at 505-564-4610 ormeasterling@daily-times.com. Support local journalism with a digital subscription. http://bit.ly/2I6TU0e.
