Study of state investments in utilities fails to advance after heated debate and tie vote
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Senate Memorial 9, which sought a Legislative Finance Committee study into whether New Mexico should invest in utilities such as PNM and NMGas, drew extensive testimony for and against. An amendment removing the Public Regulation Commission and a subsequent due‑pass vote produced a tie; the memorial will not move forward from committee.
Senate Memorial 9, which asked the Legislature’s oversight arm to study whether New Mexico should consider investing in major utilities (including PNM and NMGas) instead of allowing long‑term value to flow to out‑of‑state owners, failed to advance from the Senate Rules Committee after extensive testimony and a tie vote.
Sponsor remarks framed the memorial as a data‑driven study to determine whether state investment could preserve public benefit from utility value, support the Energy Transition Act (ETA) obligations and diversify revenue. "The question which this Memorial seeks to answer is should the long term value created by New Mexico's utilities continue to flow out of the state?" the sponsor said.
Supporters warned private‑equity purchases risk higher long‑term rates and the shifting of costs onto ratepayers, citing examples where private owners prioritized returns. Speakers in favor included private‑citizen witnesses and advocates who pointed to the data‑center gold rush and the strain it puts on grid infrastructure.
Opponents — including representatives of PNM, El Paso Electric, the New Mexico Chamber of Commerce and Blackstone’s counsel — argued the memorial could duplicate or improperly interfere with the Public Regulation Commission’s ongoing review of proposed acquisitions and that calling for a PRC pause would risk due‑process concerns and scare away investment. Dina Archuleta of PNM told the committee PNM serves roughly 550,000 customers and that the company is more than 70% carbon‑free in its 2025 energy mix.
A procedural amendment proposed by Senator Townsend struck language naming the PRC and asking it to refrain from action; the committee held a roll‑call on that amendment with mixed yes/no votes. Later, a motion to table the memorial failed, and a motion for a due pass as amended ended in a tie. Under committee rules, the tie meant the memorial would not move to the Senate floor.
What’s next: Because the due‑pass motion resulted in a tie, SM9 will not proceed from committee. Sponsors said the study was intended to weigh public benefits and risks; opponents said the timing (with a pending acquisition under PRC review) made the memorial inappropriate now.