PRC grants confidentiality for certain info in NM Gas Co. sale

LAS CRUCES — The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission conducted a business meeting in Las Cruces on Thursday, with the state’s three appointed utility regulators convening in the Doña Ana County Commission chambers in a proceeding that paired in-person contributions with staff input conducted by video conference.

Among its agenda items, Commissioners Greg Nibert, Patrick O’Connell and Chairman Gabriel Aguilera unanimously agreed to grant confidentiality to certain information related to the proposed sale of the New Mexico Gas Co., which serves about 549,000 households.

The utility’s current parent company, Canada-based Emera, intends to sell it to private equity firm Bernhard Capital Partners for $1.25 billion. The sale, subject to the PRC’s approval, has been opposed by some energy advocates, regulatory utility staff and the state Department of Justice. If approved, Saturn Utilities Holdco, a portfolio company of BCP Management, would take ownership of the utility, paying $700 million and assuming $550 million of the utility’s debt.

Thursday’s matter focused on a question of whether certain information under consideration should be shielded from the general public under laws protecting trade secrets. It stemmed from a motion filed by BCP in April asking the commissioners to overturn a hearing examiner’s ruling against confidentiality. PRC staff said the documents in question included a purchase and sale agreement. The documents were made available to hearing examiners, certain PRC staff members and the commissioners.

Aguilera said the decision hinged on measuring the public interest of making information available about the prospective buyer against potential harm of withholding the information. As O’Connell stated, “Utility customers deserve to know who owns their utility.”

For Nibert, it came down to whether the information qualified as trade secrets under the law. If so, then, “We have a duty to protect it.” Nibert added, “If the transaction moves forward, then there’s entirely different reporting requirements.”

Aguilera and O’Connell agreed that trade secret information should be protected at this stage, with the PRC ensuring measures were in place to protect the utility’s customers if the purchase moved forward.

On a different matter, the commissioners voted to deny a request by El Paso Electric for a variance after the utility failed to provide the PRC with required 30-day prior notices of certain construction projects related to extensions, system improvements, repairs or infrastructural additions.

According to staff, EPE undertook six such projects between August and November 2024, did not file the required notices and then reported its noncompliance by asking for a variance and requesting the PRC accept the notices.

Aguilera explained that the reports are needed to review certain medium-sized projects that are not required to go through longer approval processes, as with larger projects. A utility’s expenses and investments factor into considerations of requested rate increases as well as compliance with rules promulgated by the PRC.

Nibert was initially inclined to grant the variance and accept the documents, known as Rule 440 reports, retroactively so the record would show them as timely, while asking the utility to explain how it will assure compliance moving forward.

O’Connell and Aguilera were firmly against granting the variance, and even discussed a financial penalty. Aguilera asked, if the variance was granted retroactively, “What message are we sending? Is it a message that it’s OK that you don’t file the 440s on time and the commission will grant you a variance? I think that would undermine what the purpose of the rule is.”

Instead, the commissioners voted unanimously for an order denying the variance and asking El Paso Electric to show cause why it should not pay a penalty for the noncompliance.