Opinion ID: 1219567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the commission properly consider fuel mix?

Text: The Commission stated in its order that, in addition to reserve margin to insure sufficient availability of energy sources and the time required to construct alternative future sources, [a]nother persuasive reason why all three units of PVNGS should not be excluded for jurisdictional use is fuel mix. Final Order, 101 Pub.Util.Rep. (PUR) 4th at 174. When it granted PNM's certificate of convenience and necessity to participate in PVNGS, the Commission stated that participation would allow a desirable mix of generating fuels. See id. at 174-75. In the order, it reaffirms that [f]uel mix is important in minimizing the risk that some unanticipated event may adversely affect the price or supply of a single type of fuel. Id. at 175. The attorney general's argument that the Commission erred by considering fuel mix fails to convince us that the Commission has acted improperly. Fuel mix considerations were not dispositive to the Commission's decision  they were cited as one further factor supporting the decision. Moreover, the Commission did rely on evidence in the record when it considered the effect of various mixes of generating fuels. Although the attorney general may not agree with the focus of the evidence, he did have the opportunity to present his own evidence on the benefits, or lack thereof, of different fuel mixes. The attorney general relies on the naked assertion that: [a] diverse fuel mix is a desirable goal only if it provides protection against rising costs. It is not apparent why this is true, or why the Commission could not, in its expertise and discretion, assign other values to the benefits of diversity, and we hold that the Commission's consideration of the effects of various fuel mixes was not error.