1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Opinion N um ber: 3 F ili ng D at e: A pr il 6, 201 5
4 N O. 34, 182 5 TRI -STAT E GENE RATIO N AND 6 TRANSMI SSI ON ASSOCI ATI ON, INC., 7 Appe llant, 8 v
. 9 NEW MEX ICO P UBL IC REGU LAT ION C OMM ISSION and 10 KI T CARSON ELE CTRIC COO PERATI VE, INC., 11 Appe lle es . 12 AP PE AL FR OM T HE N EW ME XIC O P UBL IC REGU LAT ION 13 COM MISS ION
14 Mo dr al l, Sp erl in g, Ro eh l, Harr is & Si sk , P.A. 15 John R. Cooney 16 Joan E
. D rake 17 E m il JohnK ie hne 18 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 19 Lewis Ro ca Ro th ge rb er LLP 20 T hom as J. D ough er

ty 21 De nver, C O1 Sh erm an & Howa rd , LLC

2 Ro be rt E
. Y oul e 3 Br ian G
. E be rl e 4 De nver, C O 5 fo r Appe llant
6 N ewMe xic o P ubl ic Re gul at ionCo m m iss ion 7 Ri ch ar d L

. Bl um en fe ld 8 San ta Fe, NM 9 fo r Appe lle e N ewMe xic o P ubl ic Re gul at ionCo m m iss ion
10 Cu dd y

& McC art hy, L LP 11 Ch ar le s V
. G ar ci a 12 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 13 Cu dd y

& McC art hy, L LP 14 A rt ur o L
. Jaram ill o 15 Patr ic k T

. O rt iz 16 San ta Fe, NM 17 for Appellee Kit Carson Electr ic Cooperative, Inc.1 OPIN ION

2 DA NIEL S, Justice. 3 { 1} In this precedential case of first im pression, we address a num ber of issues 4 related to the N ewMexico Public Regulation Comm issio n’ s authorityand p r oc e dures 5 in regulating u tilityrates of a generation and transm issio n cooperative, w hich 6 statutor ily

dif fe r fr om the Co m m iss ion ’ s po w er s ov er

the r at es c harg ed

by pub lic 7 utiliti es. W e vacate the order of the C omm issio n related to its susp ension of a 8 cooperative’ s propos ed rates a n d p ro vide gui dance for sim ilar situations that m ay 9 arise in the future. 10 I. BACKGRO UND 11 { 2} A s a

ge ne ra tio n a nd tra ns m is si on co op erat iv e (G&T C oop) owne d by f or ty -f our 12 dis tr ibu tio n c oope rativ es that are e ac h m em be rs of it s bo ar d, T r i

- St at e G en er at iona nd 13 T ransm iss ionA sso ci at ion , I n c . , s e l l s e l ec tr ic pow er e xc lus ive ly

to its m em

be rs in fo ur 14 sta te s. T o c ove r its c ost s, T ri -S ta te c harg es r at es in ac co rd an ce w ithar ev enue 15 re qui re m en t and a

r at e de sig n ap pr ove d by the T ri -S ta te board

. In 2012 , the T ri -S ta te 16 board approved a new r evenue requirem ent and a new rate design to m eet that 17 re ve nue r equir em en t f or 201 3 ( the 201 3 r at e de sig n) a nd t o r ep la ce the r at e design 18 and revenue requirem ent in effec t at that tim e (the old rate design). 19 { 3} As r equired by

NMS A 1978, Se ction 62-6-4(D ) (2003), Tr i-State filed Advice2

1 N oti ce 15 ( A

N 15) inf orm ing the Co m

m iss ion of the 2013 rate de sig n. Fo r the f ir st 2 tim e sin ce the 200 0 e na ctm en t of S ubse ct ion (D) of Se ct ion62- 6- 4, thr ee of the 3 tw el ve T ri -S ta te N ewMe xic o m em be rs ( the K it Cars on, Co nti ne nta l D ivi de , a nd 4 Sp ri nge r E le ctri c Co ope rativ es ) pr ote ste d th e 2013 r at e de sig n, a nd the Co m m iss ion 5 ope ne d C as e N o. 12- 0037 5- U T (the 2013 rate ca se ). T he Co m m iss ion fo und tha t the 6 thr ee pr ote sti ng m em

be rs ha d j ust

c au se und er

S ec tio n 62 -6 -4 (D ) fo r the Co m m iss ion 7 to s uspe nd the 201 3 r at e de sig n, a nd i t se t a he ar ing to co nsi de r w he the r the 2013 r at e 8 de sig n w as re as ona

ble

. O ne of

the c om m iss ion er s su gge ste d th at T ri -S ta te c oul d f

ile 9 a pr opos al f

or int er im r at es if it w ish ed

. 10 { 4} W iththe 201 3 r at e de sig n su spe nde d, the T ri -S ta te board ag re ed to a ddr es s it s 11 re ve nue r equir em en t ona n int er im ba sis by bil lin g the pr ote sti ng m em be rs unde r the 12 old r at e de sig n an d the nonp ro te sti ng m em be rs unde r the 2013 rate de sig n. P ur suant 13 to S ec tio n 62 -6 -4 (D ), T ri -S ta te f ile d A dvi ce N oti ce s 16 , 17, a nd 1 8 ( A N s 16, 17, a nd 14 18) with the Com

m issio n. A ccording to th e letter Tr i -S t at e attached to its advice 15 not ic es , AN 1 6 ap plied the 201 3 r at e de sig n c ont ai ne d inA N 15 t o th e nin e 16 nonp ro te sti ng m em

be rs so tha t the nonpr ote sti ng m em be rs c oul d take a dvanta ge of 17 the 201 3 r at e de sig n a s so on a s po ssi ble

. Appar en tly , m an y of the nonpr ote sti ng 18 m em be rs ha d alr ea dy ta ke n step s to im ple m en t the 2013 r at e de sig n. A N 17 s ough t3

1 to recover the portion of the 2013 revenue re quirem ent attributable t o t h e th ree 2 pr ote sti ng N ew Me xic o m em be rs usi ng the old rate de sig n. A N 18 wa s an a lte rn at ive 3 to A N 17 tha t w oul d a llo wtw o a ddi tio na l m onths, c om pare d to A

N 17, to r ec ove r the 4 revenue re quired und er A N 17 fr om

the protesting m em

bers in case any of the three 5 el ec te d to w ai ve the co ntr ac tua l ni ne ty -d ay not ic e re qui re m en t T ri -S ta te inc ur re d by 6 re pla ci ng the 201 3 r at e de sig n w iththe old r at e de sig n. 7 { 5} Whe n th e sa m e m em be rs that pr ote ste d A

N 15 f ile d prot es ts aga ins t AN s 16 , 8 17, and 18, the Com

m issio n opened Ca se No. 13-000 37-UT (the interim rat e c ase) 9 an d is sue d an or de r on Marc h 13, 2013 , re j ec tin g A N s 16, 17, an d 18 ( the O rd er ). T he 10 Or der re

j ected a public hearing of AN 16, concluding that “ the rates in question are 11 al re ady

be fo re aH eari ng Ex am ine r” be ca use A N 16 a ppl ie d r at es “ ide nti ca l” to the 12 rates pending in th e 2013 rate case. The Ord er r ej ected A Ns 17 and 18, stating that 13 th ey “ wou ld res ul t i n wh atwou ld be p e r c e i v e d as p un is hi ng th e p ro te st or s.” On 14 “ se parate a nd i nde pe nde nt g ro unds , ” the O rd er r ej ected A

N s 16 , 17, a nd 1 8 f

or the 1 5 f a i l u r e o f Tr i

- S t a t e t o s a t i s f

y t h e i n t e r i m ra t e p l e a d i n g b u r d e n i mp o s e db y a 16 Com m issio n regulation, 1.2.2. 27 NMA C (Rule 27). 17 { 6} Severa l m onth s after the Com m issio n issued the O rder, Tr i-State f iled a notice 18 of wit hd rawal fr om

the 201 3 r at e ca se in or de r to f ile A dvi ce N oti ce 19 ( A

N 19)4

1 inf orm ing the Co m

m iss ion of a rate inc re as e to ta ke ef fe ct as of January

1, 201 4. T he 2 Co m m iss ionstay ed dis co ve ry an d vac at ed the pr oc ed ur al sc he dul e on the 201 3 r at e 3 ca se , pe ndi ng r es pons es by the part ie s to T ri -S ta te ’ s not ic e of w ith dr aw al

. T ri -S ta te 4 ap pe al ed

to thi s C ourt f

ro m the O rd er , arg uin g th at

the Co m m iss ione xc ee de d it s 5 statutory

authority and that the Or d er wa s arbitrary or contrary

to law. This Court 6 rev ie ws ap pe al s fr om th e fin al or de rs of th e Co m m is si on . See NMS A 1978, § 62-11-1 7 (1 993)

. Appe lle e K it Cars on E le ctri c Co ope rativ e fi le d am oti on t o di sm iss thi s 8 ap pe al on tw o gr ound s: tha t th e Ord er w as not f ina l and tha t the appe al w as m oot , 9 iss ue s w e ad dr es s inthi s op ini on. 10 II. DISC US SION 11 { 7} Tr i-State has the burden on appeal of showing that the O rder is “ unreasonable” 12 or “ unl aw fu l. ” N MS A 1978 , § 62- 11- 4 (1 965)

. T his Co urt co nsi de rs on ly the 13 ev id en ce on th e rec or d b efo re t he Co m m is si on , see NMS A 1978, § 62-11-3 (1982 ), 14 an d r ev ie w s inf

av or of the O rd er to det er

m ine w he the r it w as sup porte d by 15 subs tanti al e vid en ce , w as ne ith er a rb itrary no r ca

pr ic iou s, a nd w as w ith in the 16 Co mm i s s io n’s s co pe of a ut ho rit y . See P lai ns E le ctric G en erati on & T rans m iss ion 17 Coop. v. N. M. Pub. Util. Comm ’n , 199 8- NMS C- 038, ¶ 7, 126 N
. M. 152 , 967 P
. 2d 18 827. T his Co urt c ane ith er a ff irm or an nul an d vac at e the O rd er but c an not m odi fy it

.15 The e ntire PU A is set forth in NMSA1978 , §§ 62-1-1 to -7 (1909, as am ended 1 16 thr ough199 3) , 62- 2- 1 to - 22 ( 1884 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 2013 ), 62- 3- 1 to - 5 ( 1967 , 17 as am en de d thro ugh 2009 ), 62- 4- 1 (199 8) , 62- 6- 4 to -2 8 (194 1, as a m en de d th ro ugh 18 2009 ), 62-8- 1 t o -1 1 (1941, as am ended throug h 201 1), 62-9-1 to -7 (1941, as 19 am ended throug h 200 5), 62-10-1 to -16 (1941, as am ended throug h 199 8), 62-11-1 20 to - 6 ( 1941 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 1993 ), 62- 12- 1 to - 7 ( 194 1, as a m en de d th ro ugh 21 1993 ), an d 62 -1 3- 1 to - 15 ( 1941 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 2010 ); see § 62-13-1 22 (specify ing th e range of articles in Chapter 62 that com prised the PUAin 199 3). 5 1 See NMS A 1978, § 62-11-5 (1982 ). 2 { 8} Section 62-6-4(D) of the Public Utility Ac t (PUA ) is the onlystatutory

1 3 provisi on that grants th e Com m issio n jurisdiction over G& T Co o p s like Tri- State. 4 Se ct ion 62- 6- 4( D ) re qui re s tha t a G &T Co op fi le its pr opos ed N ewMe xic o r at es w ith 5 th e Co m

m is si on in th e fo rm of an ad vi ce no ti ce and se rv e it s m em be r ut il it ie s. See id. 6 If a t l ea st thr ee N ewMe xic o m em be r uti lit ie s f

ile pr ote sts w ith“

j ust c au se , ” the 7 Co m m iss ion “ sha ll susp en d th e rate s, c ondu ct ahe ar ing c onc er

nin g r ea sona

ble ne ss 8 of the proposed rates and establish rea sonable rates.” Id

. Section 62- 6 -4 (D ) f

urther 9 de fin es th e req ui rem en ts of a pro te st . Id

. 10 { 9} Once the Com

m issio n’s ju ri s d i ct i o n an dra t e- m ak i n g p o we rs ar e i n v o k edunder 11 Se ct ion62- 6- 4( D ), a s inthi s c as e, the Co m m iss ionha s pl en ar

y auth or ity to se t the 12 ut il it y ’s rat es . City of Albuquerque v. N. M. Pub. Re gula tion Comm’ n , 2003-NMS C13 028, ¶ 8, 134 N.M. 472, 79 P.3d 297. A nd thi s Court defers to the “ relatively broad 14 pol ic y -m ak ing auth or ity ” tha t the L eg isl at ur e del eg at es to the Co m

m iss ion unl es s th e6

1 Com m issio n’ s interpretation of its statutory authorityis “ unreasonable.” D oña A na 2 Mut. Dom estic W

ater Con s u me r

s Ass’n v . N

.M . P ub. R egulati on Comm’n , 200 6- 3 N MS C- 032, ¶

17, 140 N
. M. 6, 139 P
. 3d 1 66. 4 { 10} “ When review ing statu tes this [C] ourt will rea d all relevant p rovisio ns tog ether 5 in order to determ ine legislative int ent.” O te ro C nty
. E le ctric Co op . v . N. M

. P ub. 6 Serv. C omm ’n , 198 9- N MS C- 033, ¶ 9, 108 N
. M. 462 , 774 P
. 2d 1 050. “ Inr ev ie w ing 7 utilityregulations as appli ed to rate c ases, this [C] ourt has interpreted the s t at u t o ry 8 langua ge br oa dly ” co nsi ste nt w iththe c onsi de ra ble dis cr et ionw ithw hic h th e 9 Co m m is si on is ve st edto de te rm in e whe th er ra te s ar e jus t an d re as on ab le

. Id

. 10 A . A dv ic e N ot ic es 17 and 18 D id N ot U nl awfu lly D isc ri m in at e A m on g T ri 11 State Mem ber Cooper atives 12 { 11} T he O rd er

r ej ec te d A

N s 17 a nd 1 8 be ca

use appr ovi ng the m

“ w ould r es ult

in 13 what would be perceived as puni shing the protestors.” The Comm issio n concluded 14 tha t A N s 17 a nd 18 were dis cr im ina tor y a s am atte r of

lawbe ca use , a s it a rg ue s on 15 ap pe al , “ [t ] he L eg isl at ur e has pr ohi bit ed dis cr im ina tor y tr eatm en t of r at ep ay er s [ in] 1 6 Se ct i o n 6 2 -8 -6 .” Th e C o m m i s s i o n a s k s u s t o af

fi rm it s Or d erd en yin g Tr i -S t at e’s 17 int er im rate s be ca

use T ri -S ta te ci te d no de ci sio n fr om thi s Co urt or the Co m m iss ion 1 8 s up p o rt i n g Tr i

- S t a t e ’s met h o do f t r e a t i n g p r o t e s t o r s a n dn o np r o t e s t o r s d i f f e r e n t l y. 19 { 12} T he langua ge of S ec ti on 62- 8- 6, how ev er , e xpr es sly appl ie s on ly

to publ ic7

1 uti lit ie s and m ak es no r ef er en ce a t a ll to G &T Co ops. 2 N o publ ic uti lity sha ll, as to rate s or se rv ic es , m ak e or gr an t any 3 unr ea sona

ble pr ef er en ce or advanta ge to an y co rp or at ion or per son 4 w ith in any

c la ssi fi catio n or

sub j ec t any co rp or at ion or pe rs on w ith in any 5 classification to any unreasonable prej udice or disadvantag e. 6 Id

. T he P U A is ex pli ci t i n ta ilo ri ng the Co mm is sio n’ s auth or ity ove r the r at es of 7 dif fe r e n tk i n d s o f

u t i l i t i e s d e p e n d i n g o n w h e t h e r au t i l i t y i s , f o r e x a m p l e , a“ publ ic 8 utility ,” see § 62-6-4(A) (defining the power and j urisdictio n of the Com m issio n over 9 the rates of publ ic utiliti es), a “ rural ele ctric c ooperative,” see § 62 -8 -7 (G ) (s am e fo r 10 rural ele ctric c ooperatives), or a “ generation and transm issio n cooperative,” see § 62

- 11 6- 4( D ) (s am e fo r G &T Co ops)

. W e fi nd no supp ort fo r the pr opos iti on tha t S ec tio n 12 62- 8- 6 is the sourc e of Co m m iss ion au tho ri ty to disa

ppr ove the rate s of a G &T Co op. 13 In ste ad , S ec tion 62 -6- 4( D ) giv es the Co m m iss ionthe auth or ity

to de te rm ine the 14 re as ona

ble ne ss of the rate s of a G &T Co op af te r at le as t thr ee of its m em be rs f ile 15 protests that th e Com m issio n determ ines have just cause. 16 { 13} Ther e ar e strong ind ications throu ghou t the PU A that the L egislature intended 17 the Com

m issio n’ s powers over a G&T Coop to be m ore lim ited than its p ower s over 18 a publ ic uti lity . A pub lic uti lity se lls pow er to the ge ne ra l pu bli c, but aG &T Co op 19 se ll s p owe r ex cl us iv el y to ot he r co op erat iv es th at are it s m em be rs . Co m pare § 62 -6

- 20 4( E ) (“ ‘ [G ] en er at ion an d transm iss ionc oope rativ e’ m eans a pe rs on w ithge ne ratio n8

1 or tra nsm iss ionf

ac ili tie s e ith er

or ganiz ed

a s ar ur al e le ctri c co ope rativ e . . . or 2 or ga ni ze d ina nothe r sta te a nd p ro vid ing sa le s of e le ctri c pow er

to me mber 3 cooperat ives in th is st at e.” (em ph as is ad de d) ), wi th § 6 2

- 3

- 3 ( G ) ( 1 ) ( “‘[P ]ub l i c u t i l i t y’ 4 or ‘ utility ’ m eans every person not eng aged solely in interstate busin ess . . . t hat m ay 5 ow n, ope rate , le as e or

c ontro l .

. . an y . . . fa ci lity f or the ge ne ratio n, tr an sm iss ionor 6 dis tr ibu tio n, sa le or

f ur nis hin g to o r fo r th e publ ic of e le ctri ci ty

. . . . ” (e m

pha sis 7 added)). The ownership and organ i za t i o n o f a r ural elec tric cooperative or a G& T 8 Co op di ffer s fr om

th atof a p u b l ic ut il it y . Co m pare N MS A 197 8, § 62 -1 5- 2 ( 1998 ) 9 (s ta tin g th at

r ur al e le ctri c co ope rativ es a re or ganize d onanonpr of it or c oope rativ e 10 basis un der N MSA1978 , Sections 62-15-1 to -37 (1939, as am ended throug h 201 4), 11 “ fo r the pr im ar

y pur pose of sup ply ing e le ctri c pow er [ to]
. . . a nd e xte ndi ng the use 12 of ele ct ric it y

in rur al area s” ), and

§ 62 -6 -4 (E) (s ta tin g th at aG &T Co op m ay

be 13 or ga ni zedas a rur al ele ct ric co op erat iv e) , wi th § 62 -3 -2 (A )( 3) ( de sc ri bin g publi c 14 ut il it ie s as “ in ve st or -o wne d” an d “ pr of it m ot iv at ed ”). Se e als o Ri ch ar d P

. K ec k, 15 Re evaluatin g the Rural Elec trificati on A dministra tion: A New De al for th e Taxpayer , 16 16 Envtl. L . 39, 45-47 (198 5) (describing the histo ry of the fe d er al Rural 17 E le ctri fi catio n A ct

a nd e le ctri c co ope rativ es a nd e xpl ai nin g ho wr ur al e le ctri c 18 co ope rativ es a nd g en er at iona nd transm iss ionc oope rativ es w er e bor n inthe la te9

1 1930 s a s a re sul t of tha t cong re ssi ona l ena ctm en t to ince nti viz e the el ec tr if ic at ionof 2 rura l A m er ic a by

auth or iz ing low -i nte re st loans f or ge ne ratio n and transm iss ion 3 facilities as w ell as for distribution fac ilities). 4 { 14} The P UAlim its the Com m issio n’ s power and j urisdictio n over cooperatives as 5 co m pare d to pub lic uti lit ie s. T he Co m m iss ionha s “ ge ne ra l and e xc lus ive pow er a nd 6 j ur isd ic tio n to regula te a nd s upe rv ise e ve ry pub lic uti lity

in re spe ct

to its r at es a nd 7 service r egulation s . . . .” Section 62-6-4(A). A publ ic utilitycannot change its rates 8 wit ho ut fir st ob ta in in g t he Co m m is si on ’s app ro va l. See § 62 -8 -7 (A )- (F ). W he n a 9 pu bl ic uti lity

r eque sts ar at e ch an ge , the Co m m iss ion“ m ay ” co nduc t a he ar ing 10 co nc er

nin g th e re as ona

ble ne ss o f the r at es ; an d the pr opos ed rate s ar e sus pe nde d un til 11 the Co m

m iss ionde te rm ine s r ea sona ble r at es . See § 62- 8- 7( C)

. A t any he ar ing 12 inv olv ing a n in cr ea se in rate s, the publ ic uti lity c ar ri es the bur de n of

pr ovi ng tha t the 13 increase “ is just and rea sonable.” Se ction 62 -8-7(A ). 14 { 15} Inc ontra st, the Co m m iss ion ’ s juri sdi ct ion ove r a rur al el ec tr ic co ope rativ e or 1 5 a G &T C o o p i s n o tg e n e r a l a n de x c l u s i v e b u ti n s t e a dm u s tb e t r i g g e r e db y

p r o t e s ts 16 filed by

a prescribed num

ber o f m em

bers b efore the Com

m issio n has any power over 17 pr op os edrat es . See § 62-6-4(A) (excluding the rates of G&T Coops fr om the general 18 an d e xc lus ive pow er

of the Co m

m iss ion to re gul at e the rate s of pub lic uti lit ie s) ; § 62-10

1 6- 4( D ) (s ettin g f

orth the r equir em en ts o f the pr ote s t s th at c oul d c au se the Co m m iss ion 2 to r ev ie wthe r at es sub m itt ed by aG &T Co op)

. T he r at es of ar ur al e le ctri c 3 co ope rativ e be co m e ef fe ct ive “ as pr opos ed ” ex ce pt “ [u] pon the f ili ng w iththe 4 [C ] om m iss ion of a pr ote st se tti ng fo rth gr ound s fo r re vie wof the pr opos ed

r at es ” by 5 the pr es cr ibe d po rt ionof c ust om er s w ithj ust

c au se . S ec tio n 62 -8 -7 (G ). A lth ough 6 Se ct ion62- 6- 4( D ) doe s no t e xpr es sly state that the r at es of a G &T Co op are e ff ec tiv e 7 as pr opos ed , it spe ci fi ca lly al low s the Co m m iss ion to susp en d the ra te s subm itt ed by 8 a G &T Coop on ly when the specified num ber of protests w ith j ust ca use have been 9 fil ed

. See id. ( “ If

thr ee or m or e N ew Me xic o m em

be r uti lit ie s f

ile pr ote sts [ w ithj ust 10 cause] , the [ C] omm issio n shall su spend th e ra tes . . . .” ). 11 { 16} T he L eg isl at

ur e dir ec te d that rura l ele ctri c coo pe rativ es ar e to be r eg ula te d in 12 a “ lim ite d” m an ne r be ca use the y ar e “ subs tanti al ly dif fe re nt” fr om publ ic uti lit ie s. 13 Section 62-3-2(A) (3). Consum ers have no control over the rates of investor-owned 14 publ ic uti lities , id. , and accordinglythe PU A see ks a balanced regulation that 15 ad dr es se s “ th e p ub li c in te res t, t he in te res t o f co ns um ers an d t he in te res t o f in ve st or s.” 16 Se ct ion62- 3- 1( B)

. I n contra st, the int er es ts o f the pur ch as er s of e le ctri c pow er

f ro m 17 a G &T Co op, w ho ow n th e G &T Co op, a re a lr ea dy a ddr es se d de m oc ratic al ly thr ough 18 th e o wne r-m em

be rs hi p of

th e G&T Co op bo ard

. See § 62-3-2(A)( 2)-(3) ( stating th at11

1 m em bers of cooperatives have “ direct control over the coo perative’ s rates through an 2 el ec te d bo ar d of

tr ustee s” ); se e als o M

orni ngstar W

ate r U se rs A ss’ n v . N. M

. P ub. 3 Util. Comm ’n , 19 95 -NMSC -0 62 , ¶ 20 , 12 0 N.M. 5 79 , 90 4 P .2d 28 (“ The PUA 4 atte m pts to dis tin gui sh o n th e one hand util iti es tha t ar e re qui re d to se rv e any an d a ll 5 m em bers o f th e p ublic who request [utility ] service and on the other hand util ities that 6 ope rate m or e lik e a pr iva te c oa lit ionor cl ub tha t c hoos es to lim it its se rv ic es onl y to 7 its own select m em

bers.” ). 8 { 17} T he L eg isl at

ur e ex pr es sly re co gni ze d tha t the re is no r at ion al ba sis f or tr eatin g 9 rural ele ctric c ooperatives and pu blic utilit ies the sam e as to their rates because a rura l 10 electri c cooperative is not invest or-owned. Sec tion 6 2-3-2(A) (3) (“ Experience has 11 shown that a ratio n al basis exists to provid e procedures f or setting rates of rural 12 el ec tr ic c oope rativ es di ff er en t f ro m a nd m or e lim ite d th antho se f or se tti ng r at es of 13 inv es tor -o w ne d ut ili tie s. ”)

. T he L eg isl at ur e’ s langua ge in Se ct ion62- 3- 2( A )( 3) 14 ec hoe s this Co urt’ s holdi ng tha t the re is not ar at ion al ba sis f

or tr eatin g r ur al e le ctri c 15 co ope rativ es a nd p ubl ic uti lit ie s th e sa m e unde r th e PU A—ar at ion al e w hic h a lso 16 ap pl ie s t o G& T Coo ps . See Cm ty. Pub. Serv. Co. v. N.M

. Pub. Serv. C

omm ’n , 196 6- 17 N MS C- 053, ¶¶ 1, 11, 14, 76 N. M. 314 , 414 P
. 2d 6 75 ( hol din g th at a196 1 a m en dm en t 18 to includ e rura l electric cooperatives as public uti lities und er the P UAdenied equal12

1 protection to p ublic uti lities because there w as no rational basis for givin g rural 2 el ec tr ic c oope rativ es P U A a dvanta ge s w ith o u t s u b j e c t i ng the m

to fu ll PU A r eg ula tio n 3 and the requirem ent to render service to the general public as pres cr i b ed fo r other 4 el ec tr ic uti lit ie s un de r the P U A ); se e als o Edington v. N. M. Pub. Serv. Comm ’n , 196 4- 5 N MS C- 248, ¶

6, 74 N
. M. 647, 397 P. 2d 300 (d isc uss ing his tor y le ad ing to the 196 1 6 inclusio n of rural e lectric c ooperatives as pub lic utilities u nder the PU A)

. 7 { 18} T he langua ge of S ec tio n 62 -8 -6 r es tr ic tin g it s a ppl ic at ionto a publ ic uti lity is 8 sig nif ic an t be ca

use aG &T Coop is not

inv es tor -o w ne d; the L eg isl at ur e ex pr es sly 9 lim ite d the Co m

m iss ion ’ s po w er s ov er

uti lit ie s th at

a re not inv es tor -o w ne d; and the 10 Co m m iss ion ’ s on ly

auth or ity

over G&T Co ops co m es f ro m S ec tio n 62 -6 -4 , 11 Su bse ct ion( D ), w hic h th e L eg isl at ur e en ac te d in its 2000 am en dm en t of S ec tio n 62

- 12 6- 4 w ith out

a lte ri ng the langua ge that r es tr ic ts a ppl ic at ionof

S ec tio n 62 -8 -6 to publ ic 13 uti lit ie s. 14 { 19} A lth oughS ec tio n 62 -8 -6 m ak es no t ex tua l r ef er en ce to a G &T Co op, it s 15 pr ohi bit iona ga in st “ unre as ona ble dif fe re nc es a s to r at es ” es ta bli she d by

apub lic 16 ut il it y is a pr oh ib it io n t ha t ap pl ie s t o G& T Coo ps as we ll be cau se Sect io n 6 2- 6- 4( D) 17 ex pli ci tly

auth or iz es the Co m

m iss ionto “ co nduc t a he ar ing c onc er

nin g 18 reas on ab le ne ss of t he [G&T Co op ] pr op os edrat es an d e st ab li sh reas on ab le rat es .”13

1 O bvi ousl y , r at es inc or

por at ing unr ea sona

ble dif fe re nc es or

dis cr im in at i o ns, the f

oc us 2 of Sec tion 6 2-8-6, w ould be unreasonable rates under Se ction 62 -6-4(D ). 3 { 20} N e i t h e r s ta tu te pro hi bi ts reas on ab le va ria ti on s i n ra te s. See § 62 -8 -6 ( sta tin g 4 that a public uti lity

shall not g rant an “ unreasonable prefer ence” o r ca u se an 5 “ u n r e a s o n ab l e p r e

j u d i c e ” i n i t s r a t e - m a k i n g ); Albuquerqu e B ernalill o Cnty. W ater 6 Util. Auth. v. N. M. Pub. Re gula tion Comm’ n , 201 0- N MS C- 013, ¶ 61, 148 N
. M. 21, 7 229 P. 3d 4 94 ( “ [S ec tio n 62 -8 -6 ] doe s no t pr ohi bit vari at ion s inr at es , nor

doe s it 8 re qui re ‘ equa l se rv ic e. ’ Rathe r, it pr ohi bit s ‘ unr ea sona

ble dif fe re nc es ’ in ra te s of 9 se rv ic e b etw ee n lo ca lit ie s. S ec tio n 62 -8 -6 thu s f or bid s arb itr ar

y vari at ion s inr at es , 10 whi le pe rm it ti ng va ria ti on s d ue to di ffe r i n g c o st s o f se rv ic e to di ffer en t ar eas .” 11 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted)). 12 { 21} Although no prior ap pellate decision has cons trued Section 62-6-4(D) , ther e 13 is a bsol ute ly n oth ing in the statut e or it s le gis la tiv e his tor

y to ind ic at e tha t the 14 L eg isl at

ur e int en de d to im

pose af la t ban onr ea sona

ble vari at ion s in rate s. Whil e it 15 is p oss ibl e tha t a

m aj or ity of bo ard m em be rs of ac oope rativ e co uld

e nga ge in 16 un reasonab le dis cr im ina tio n a ga ins t m ino ri ty m em be rs a nd thus en ga ge in 17 unr ea sona

ble r at e- m ak ing , the re is no ev ide nc e in this r ec or d to sup port a c onc lus ion 18 tha t T ri -S ta te ’ s bo ar d un re as ona bly dis cr im ina te d a ga ins t i ts m ino ri ty m em be rs .14

1 { 22} Se ct ion62- 6- 4( D ) co m pe ls the Co m

m iss ionto loo k a t the a dditio na l f ac ts 2 sur ro undi ng the r ea sona

ble ne ss o f T ri -S ta te ’ s inte ri m rate s, w hic h is the pur pose of 3 the r equir ed

he ar ing : t o gi ve avoi ce to the nonpr ote sti ng m em be rs so tha t the 4 Co m m iss ion can be fu lly

inf orm ed of a ll m em be rs ’ int er es ts and c onc er ns. A s T ri

5 St at e poi nts out

on a ppe al , “ Be ca

use T ri -S ta te is obl iga te d to reco ve r it s re ve nue 6 re qui re m en t f

ro m it s M em be rs , [ the Co m

m iss ion ’ s su spe nsi on o f the 201 3 r at e 7 de sig n] le ft

a n e sti m at ed shor

tf al l of ove r $14 m ill ionf

or N ewMe xic o w hic h w oul d 8 ne ce ssari ly

ha ve to be born e in so m e fa shi on b y a ll Me m be rs . ” T ri -S ta te ’ s in te ri m 9 rates w ere designed to be fair to a ll of its m em bers because “ the Protestors would pay 10 under the old rate design (which they asked for), and the non-Protestors would pay 11 un de r th e n ew rat e d es ig n (wh ic h t he y di d n ot pro te st ).” 12 { 23} W e conclude that the Or d er ’s rej ection of AN s 17 and 18 wa s im proper 1 3 be cause a s am a t t e r

o f l a wt h e i n t e r i m

r a t e s t h e y

p r e s c r i b e a r e n o tu n r e a s o na bly 14 dis cr im ina tor

y a nd b ec au se the re is no e vid en ce oth er w ise of unr ea sona

ble 15 dis cr im ina tio n. 16 B. R ej ec ti ng t he A dv ic e Not ic es Wi th ou t a H ea ri ng V iol at ed S ec ti on 62- 6- 17 4( D) 18 { 24} A lth oughthe Co m m iss ion ’ s r eg ula tio ns a llo wit gr eat l at itu de in m an ag ing it s 19 ow n pr oc ee din gs, the Co m m iss ionc an not

appl y it s r eg ula tio ns c ontrary

to Se ct ion15

1 62- 6- 4. See, e . g. , Jones v. Em p’t Servs. D iv. of Human Servs. De p’t , 1980-NMS C2 120, ¶ 3, 95 N. M. 97, 619 P. 2d 542 (“ If there is a conflict or inconsi stency betwee n 3 sta tut es a nd r eg ula tio ns p ro m ulg at ed by a n a ge nc y , the langua ge of the sta tut es sha ll 4 prevail. A n agency

by regulation cannot o verrule a specific statute.” ). 5 { 25} Whe n th e Co m

m iss ionde te rm ine s j ust

c au se in at

lea st th re e pr ote sts of

a ny 6 G &T Co op a dvi ce not ic e, S ec tio n 62 -6 -4 (D ) re qui re s aCo m m iss ionhe ar ing on the 7 re as ona

ble ne ss o f the pr ote ste d r at es w ith out dis tin gui shi ng b etw ee n in te ri m a nd 8 perm anent rates and re ferr in g o n l y to “ rates” gener ally . T he PU A def ines “ rate” 9 br oa dly , statin g th at

a“ ‘ rate ’ m eans e ve ry

r at e, tari ff

, c harg e or

oth er c om pe nsa tio n 10 fo r uti lity se rv ic e re nde re d or to be r en de re d by a uti lity . ” Se ct ion62- 3- 3( H ). Abse nt 11 furthe r le gis la tiv e cl ar if ic at ion , w e take th is t o m ean th at the “ rate ” re fe rr ed

to in 12 Se ct ion62- 6- 4( D ) in cl ud es both in te ri m a nd p er m an en t r at es be ca

use , a s w e w ill 13 discuss , a

G& T C oop d oes not request in terim rate relief—it only

needs to file new 1 4 ra t es wi t h t h e C o m

m i s s i o n p u rs u an tt o Se ct i o n 6 2 -6 -4 (D ). We ad d re s s t h e O rd er ’s 1 5 t w o g r o u n d s o f

r e je c t i o n s e p a r a t e l y. 16 1. R ej ec ti on of

A dv ic e N ot ic e 16 W it ho ut a He ar in g B ase d on a P ri or 17 Sus pens io n o f the S ame Rate s Vi ol at ed Se cti on 62 -6 -4 (D) 18 { 26} The Ord er con cl ude d th at the A N 16 r at e pr es cr ipt ionf or nonpr ote sti ng 19 m emb er s wa s “ identical” to the susp ended AN 15 rate prescr iptio n. T he Or der16

1 r e j e c t e d A N 1 6 p u r s u a n t t o t h e r e g u l a t i o n t h a t r e qu i r e s a u t i l i t y t o c om ply w ith 2 Co m m is si on ord ers , see 17.1.210.11(H ) N MAC (stating t h at the Com m issio n m ay 3 re j ec t r at es , r

ule s, or f orm s that “ ar e not in s ubst an tia l c om pli an ce w ithCo m

m iss ion 4
. . . o rd er s ”) , “ b ec au s e w h en t h e Co m m i s s i o n s u s p en d ed t h e r at es [f i l ed u n d erAN 1 5 ], 5 it did not li m it the sus pe nsi on t o on ly t ho se r at es to be c harg ed to the pr ote sti ng 6 [m em be rs ] .” On appe al , the Co m m iss ionstate s, “ O rd inari ly , ar at e ei the r goe s in to 7 ef fe ct or it is sus pe nde d—n ot i n part , but in w hol e, so tha t the e nti re ty of the r at e an d 8 it s ef fect s o n v ari ou s cu st om er clas se s can be ev al ua te d b efo re i t i s m ad e p erm an en t.” 9 { 27} W e re co gni ze that A N 16 t es ts the Co m

m iss ion ’s pow er

to en fo rc e its pr ior 10 or de r su sp en di ng AN 15 in th e 2 01 3 ra te cas e. See N MS A 1978 , § 8- 8- 4( B) (5 ) (1 998) 11 (“ T he [ C] om

m iss ionm ay

. . . take a dm ini str at ive a ct ionby iss uin g or de rs not 12 inc onsi ste nt w ithlawto as sur e im ple m en ta tio n of

a nd c om pli an ce w iththe p r o vis ion s 13 of lawf or w hic h th e [C ] om

m iss ionis re spon sib le a nd t o enf or ce tho se or de rs by 14 ap pr opr ia te a dm ini str at ive a ct iona nd c ourt pr oc ee din gs. ”)

. K it Cars on d es cr ibe s T ri

15 St at e’s requ es t fo r int er im rate s as an atte m pt by T ri -S ta te to ch ar ge rate s on a 1 6 te m por a ry b a s i s t h a t w e r e p r e v i o u s l y s u s p e n d e d i n t h e 2 0 1 3 r a t e c a s e . W e m ust 17 assum e that the 2 0 1 3 ra t e case is still pend ing because Tr i-State f iled a w ithdrawal 18 in the 201 3 rate c ase and t here is no ind ication in th e re cord that such a withdraw al17

1 ha s b een gra nt ed

. See 17. 1. 210. 11( E ) N MA C (“ [A ] fi lin g whi ch ha s bee n m ad e w ith 2 the Co m

m iss ionm ay

not be w ith dr awn or

c hange d in an y m anne r w ith out the 3 Com m iss ion ’ s a

ppr ova l. S uc h a

ppr ova l m ay

be gr an te d by

the Co m m iss ionin its 4 dis cr et ion

. ”)

. T he O rd er did not ind ic at e tha t the Co m

m iss ionint en de d to c onso lid at e 5 a he ar ing of the A

N 16 inte ri m rate w iththe he ar ing of the pe rm an en t r at e in the 201 3 6 rat e cas e o r th atAN 16 wou ld be he ardat a l a t e r t i me. Bec au se Sect io n 6 2- 6- 4( D) 7 ap pli es to both pe rm an en t an d int er im r at es , w e co nc lud e tha t this se ct ionr equir es the 8 Co m m iss ionto gr an t a

he ar ing of AN 1 6. T he O rd er w as c ontrary

to Se ct ion62- 6- 9 4( D ) in i ts r ej ec tio n of

A N 16 w ith out

ahe ar ing

. 10 2. R ej ec ti on of

A dv ic e N ot ic es 16, 17 , a nd 18 Wit ho uta H ea ri ng Ba se d on 11 All eg ed Rul e 2 7 No nco m pl ia nce Vi ol at ed Se cti on 62 -6 -4 (D) 12 { 28} The O rder r ej ected A Ns 16, 17, and 18 and, having conclu ded that the advice 13 not ic es la ck ed

the e vid en tia

ry sup port r equir ed

by the Comm is sio n’ s r eg ula tio n 14 es ta bli shi ng tha t a

uti lity ha s th e bur de n of suppo rt ing its int er im r at e re lie f re que st 15 with evidence, declined to hear them pursuant to Rule 27(A) -(D ). Rule 27(A) requires 16 tha t pl ea din gs f

or int er im r el ie f “ m ust a lle ge suc h e xtr ao rd inary f ac ts o f im m ed ia te 17 an d ir re para ble inj ur y as w oul d j ust if

y the [ C] om

m iss ion ’ s e xe rc ise of

dis cr et ionby 18 gr an tin g in te ri m

r el ie f pr ior

to a fi na l de ci sio n, ” Ru le 27( B) pr es cr ibe s th at the 19 ple ad ing “ be a cc om

panie d by a ff idavit or te sti m ony

in supp ort of

the r eque st , ” an d18

1 Ru le 27( C) spe ci fi es not ic e re qui re m en ts. Ru le 27( D ) au tho ri ze s th e Co m m iss ionto 2 fo reg o a pu bl ic he ari ng on “ req ue st s fo r in te rim rel ie f ot he r th an in te rim rat e rel ie f.” 3 T ri -S ta te r ef

er re d to int er im rate s in its let te r to the Co m m iss ion de sc ri bin g AN s 16 , 4 17 , and 18 , an d o n ap pe al Tri-S ta te de sc rib es th es e ad vi ce n ot ic es as t he “ rat es . . . 5 th at wou ld ap pl y on ly from Marc h t o Dec em

be r 20 13 ” p ur su an t t o S ect io n 6 2- 6- 4( D) 6 an d no t R

ule 27. 7 { 29} W e re co gni ze that the Co m m iss ion ’ s r

ule s of pr oc ed ur e, of w hic h Ru le 27 i s 8 a p art , app ly “ to all ut il it y di vi si on . . . pr oc eed in gs ot he r th an ru le m ak in g[ ]. ” 1 .2.2 .2 9 N MA C. T he Co m

m iss ion ’ s r at e- m ak ing auth or ity ove r publ ic uti lit ie s “ carr ie s w ith 10 it the inc ide nta l and i m pli ed pow er to gr an t i nte ri m

r at e re lie f, if th e facts w ar rant” 11 su ch rel ie f. U. S. W

est Comm c’ns v. N. M. State Corp. Comm ’n , 19 99 -NMSC -0 16 , ¶ 12 16, 127 N
. M. 254 , 980 P. 2d 37 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks an d c itatio n om itt ed ). I f the 1 3 C o mmi s s i o n s u s p e n d s t h e p r o p o s e d r a t e c h a n g e o f a p ub l i c u t i l i t y f o r ap e r i o do f

t i me 1 4 b e f o r e t h e C o mm i s s i o n d e t e rmi n e s t h e r a t e , i n t e r i m ra t e r e l i e f p r e v e n t s , e f f e c t i v e l y, 15 the Co m

m iss io n’s tak ing of

the pr ope rty

of the pub lic uti lity

w ith out j ust 16 c o m pe ns at io n. Se e M

ou ntai n Stat e s T

e l

. & T e l

. C o. v . N

. M

. St at e C or p. Comm ’n , 17 1977 -N MS C- 032, ¶

¶ 38, 41, 50, 90 N
. M. 3 25, 563 P
. 2d 5 88 ( ex pla ini ng tha t the 18 Co m m iss io n m ay

appr ove int er im

r at e re lie f tha t a

ppl ie s un til it

de ci de s th e19

1 pe rm an en t r at es to pre ve nt an unc onst itu tio na l conf isc at ion of

pr ope rty w ith out due 2 process of law ). 3 { 30} Th e C o m

m i s s i o n s u g g es t s t h at t h e L eg i s l at u re wa s aw ar e o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s 4 powers over the interim rates of utiliti es an d m ust have intended Rule 2 7 to “ fill[] that 5 ga p” in Se ct ion62- 6- 4( D ) as to int er im r at es . T he Ru le 27 p re de ce sso r gove rn ing 6 interim rate relief, 17.1.2. 30 NMA C (12/31/1 998), w as in ex i st e nc e b e f or e 2 000 w hen 7 Subs ect io n (D) of Sect io n 62 -6 -4 was en act ed

. See 9 N. M. R eg. 1414 (De c. 31, 1998). 8 Ca se law im

posi ng the int er im rate r el ie f bur de n e xis te d e ve n e ar lie r than th e Ru le 27 9 pr ed eces so r. Se e, e . g. , In re Ga s C o. o f N.M. , 28 P
. U
. R 4 th 2 0, 41 ( 1978 ) (“ A uti lity 10 se ek ing the e xe rc ise of thi s di sc re tio n ha s a he av y bur de n to b ear. . . . T he c om pany 11 m ust de m on st rat e tha t the gr an tin g of int er im r at e re lie f pr ior

to a rate de sig n 12 de te rm ina tio n w ill not und uly bur de n it s c ust om er s and i f not gr an te d w ill r es ult

in 13 an extrem e hardship to th e com pany .” ). 14 { 31} The Com m i ss i ono ve r l oo ks t he f a c tt hati nt e r i m

r a t e r e l i e f

i s af or m o f r e l ief 15 fr om the rate -m ak ing pow er s the Co m m iss ione xe rc ise s ov er

pub lic uti lit ie s and n ot 16 co op erat iv es . Se e, e . g. , id. at 40-41 (stating th at the legal basis of interim rate relief 17 co m es fr om the co nst itu tio na l duty of the Co m m iss ionto fi x in te ri m

r at es that w oul d 18 m inim ize the confiscation of the publ ic utility ’ s property but th at the Com m issio n has20

1 the dis cr et ionto co nsi de r w he the r the int er im r at e re lie f pr opos al is ap pr opr ia te in the 2 cas e at ha nd and to im pose the bur de n onthe pub lic uti lity to showthat the r at e 3 pr opos al is ap pr opr ia te ); M ountain Sta tes T

el

. & T el . C o. v. N. M

. Sta te Co rp. 4 Comm ’n , 1985 -N MS C- 024, ¶¶ 6, 9- 10, 102 N
. M. 409, 696 P. 2d 1002 (s ta tin g th at the 5 U nit ed S ta te s S upr em e Co urt se t the standard fo r de te rm ini ng w he n ac onf isc at ionof 6 a p ub l i c u t i l i t y co m

p an y’ s p ro p er t y h as o cc u rr ed an daf fi rmin g t h e C o m

m i s s i o n ’s 7 de nia l of

a pu bl ic ut ility

r eque st f or int er im r at e re lie f be ca

use the r ec or d di d no t 8 adequately

suppo rt the public util ity ’ s confiscation claim ). 9 { 32} Interim

rate relief is a con cept uniqu e to publi c utilities because the onlyway 10 a p ub li c u ti li ty can ch an ge it s ra te s i s b y Co m m is si on ap pr ov al

. See § 62 -6 -4 (A); § 11 62- 8- 7( A )- (F ). A pu bl ic utility sub j ec t t o c onf

isc at ionof

it s pr ope rty

w ith out due 12 pr oc es s m ay

be j ust if ie d inse ek ing the Comm iss ion ’ s a ppr ova l of

it s r eque st f

or 1 3 i n t er i m ra t e re l i ef

. In co n t ra s t , a G& T Co o p d o es n o t n ee d t o s ee kt h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s 14 ap pr ova l f

or int er im r at es be ca

use aG &T Co op b oard

c ana gr ee to a newr at e an d f ile 15 that new r ate pu rs u an t to Section 62-6-4(D) w ithou t requesting in terim rate relief 16 unde r Ru le 27. T he L eg isl at ur e w oul d no t have ne ce ssari ly co nsi de re d c onf isc at ion 1 7 i m p l i ca t i o n s o f t h e i n t er i m

ra t e r el i ef

p l ea d i n g b u rd en as p ar to f t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s 18 au tho ri ty

ov er G&T Co ops be ca

use aG &T Co op d oe s no t se ek suc h in te ri m

r at e21

1 rel ie f bu t in st ead no ti fie s th e Co m m is si on of ne w rat es as S e c t i o n 6 2- 6- 4( D) 2 pr es cr ibe s. 3 { 33} O ur

de te rm ina tio n he re that the L eg isl at ur e did not

int en d f or the Co m m iss ion 4 to ha ve rate -m ak ing pow er s ove r the rate s of G &T Co ops ind ep en de nt o f Se ct ion62- 5 6-4(D) delineates the roles of the statute and Rule 27 in p ro posals for interim rates 6 an d r eque sts fo r int er im rate re lie f. Se ct ion 62- 6- 4( D ) is the onl y PU A sourc e of the 7 Co m m iss ion ’ s auth or ity

ove r the r at es of

aG &T Co op, a nd the br oa d r ef er en ce s to 8 “ rate s” in Se ct ion 62- 6- 4( D ) do not dis tin gui sh be tw ee n int er im an d pe rm an en t r at es . 9 Rule 27(A) -(C) im

poses a p leading burden on a utility requesting int erim

rate relief 10 while G &T Coops u nder Sec tion 6 2-6-4(D) do not seek adm inistrative action to set 11 rate s inthe f

ir st p la ce . U nli ke pub lic ut il it ies un de r Se ct ion62- 8- 7 th at m ust f ir st 12 propos e a r ate and then obtain th e Com m issio n’ s approval before the ra te is eff ective, 13 the r at es of

G &T Co ops, li ke r

ur al e le ctri c co ope rativ es , a re e ff ec ti ve im m ed ia te ly 14 unless su spended u nder Section 62-6-4(D). If the Comm issio n susp ends a G&T rate, 15 int er im

or not, t he n the Co m

m iss ionund er

S ec tio n 62 -6 -4 (D ) m

ust “ co nduc t a 16 he ar ing co nc erni ng the r ea sona ble ne ss” of

the r at e; w hil e Ru le 27( D ) al low s th e 17 Co m m iss ionto “ ac t[ ] upo n [ a re que st f or int eri m rel ie f] w ithor

w ith out pub lic 18 he ar ing

. ” Ru le 27( A )- (C ) im pose s the ple ad ing bur de n on the uti lity se ek ing int er im22

1 rat e rel ie f, se e als o § 62-8-7(A) (im posin g a pleading bu rden on a p ublic utilitythat 2 se ek s th e Co m

m iss ion ’ s a

ppr ova l of

it s r at e) , w hil e Se ct ion62- 6- 4( D) does n ot 3 re qui re aG &T Co op to carr y an y bur de n of

pr oof or ple ad ing in or de r to s et

it s r at es . 4 { 34} To the extent that Rule 27 requires a utility to file a request for interim relief 5 as a“ co m

pla int , pe tit ion , ap pli catio n, or oth er ple ad ing ” w iththe Co m

m iss ion , Ru le 6 27 i s ap p l i c ab l e g e n e r a l l y ; a n dA N s 1 6 , 1 7 , a n d1 8 a r e T r i

- S t a t e ’ s p l e a d i n g s f or 7 int er im rat es . B ut S ec tio n 62 -6 -4 (D ) al one , a nd n ot R ule 27, dic ta te s th e 8 Com m issio n’ s authority and its obl igation s in reviewing any G& T C oop rate “ filed 9 in th e fo rm

of a n a dv ic e n ot ic e,” i nc lu di ng ANs 1 6, 1 7, a n d 18 . Sect io n 6 2- 6- 4( D) 10 au tho ri ze s th e Co m

m iss io n’s rev ie wof

the “ re as ona

ble ne ss” of

ar at e— int er im

or 11 oth er w ise —on ly

w he n th e Com

m iss ionde te rm ine s, a s th e O rd er a sse rt s it did in thi s 12 ca se , that at le as t thr ee G &T Co op m em be rs ha ve pr ote ste d th e rate in a show ing of 13 “ j ust c au se . . . for

r ev ie w . ” T ri -S ta te inc ur

re d no ple ad ing bur de n be ca use S ec tio n 14 62- 6- 4( D ) im

pose s abur de n one ac h pr ote sti ng m em be r to s ta te gr ou nd s fo r its 15 al le gatio n th at

“ th e pr opos ed

r at es a re unr ea sona

ble , ” spe ci fy

the r el ie f it re que sts , 1 6 de sc r i b e i t s e f

f o rt s t o e x h au s t r e m e d i e s f o r r e s o l u t i o n o f i t s d i s p u t e of the 17 de m oc ratic al ly

de te rm ine d rate , an d pr ovi de an au tho ri zatio n of the m em be r’ s pr ote st 18 fr om the G &T Co op b oard

.23

1 { 35} Having determ ined the required s howing of “ j ust cause, ” the Com

m issio n was 2 obl iga te d by Se ct ion 64- 6- 4( D ) to “ co nduc t a he ar ing c onc er

nin g r ea sona

ble ne ss” of 3 the r at es spe ci fi ed

in A N s 16 , 17, a nd 1 8. T he O rd er w as c ontrary

to Se ct ion62- 6- 4 4( D ) w he n it

r ej ec te d A

N s 16 , 17, a nd 1 8 w ith out ahe ar ing

. 5 C . We R ej ec t Ki t C ar son ’s M oot ne ss C lai m an d D en y It s M ot ion t o D ism iss 6 the Orde r 7 { 36} Kit Carson m oved to d ism iss Tri-S tate’ s appeal of the Or der on ground s that 8 the Or der was n ot final an d the issues we re m oot. W e w rite to clarif y for f uture cases 9 the reasons why

we did no t dism iss this appeal. W e re cognize that the interim rates 10 ar e to s om e ex te nt “ ide nti ca l” to a r at e tha t w as a lr ea dy be fo re the Co m

m iss iona nd 11 tha t this be ar s onw he the r the O rd er is fi na l f or appe al

. A nd i f iss ue s of

the r at es in 12 AN s 16, 1 7, or 18 are pending in another proceeding before the Com m issio n, re view 13 by thi s C ou rt wou ld no t b e ap pr op ria te . See § 62-11-1 (stating that only“ final” orders 14 of the Co m m iss ionc anbe appe al ed

to thi s C ourt) ; B. L. Goldberg & Assocs. , I nc. v . 15 Uptown, I

nc. , 198 5- N MS C- 084, ¶

3, 103 N
. M. 277, 705 P. 2d 6 83 ( “ Fo r pur pose s of 16 appeal, an order or j udgm ent is not considered final unless all issu es of lawand fact 17 h av e b ee n determ ined and the case dispo sed of .

. . to the fullest extent po ssibl e. ”). 1 8 Ho we v er , we d en y t h e mot i o n t o d i s m i s s b ec au s e th e Com mi s s i o n re je ct ed Tr i -S t at e’s 19 in te rim rat e ap pl ic at io n a nd bypas se d th e he ari ng req ui rem en ts of Sect io n 6 2- 6- 4( D)24

1 w he n it de te rm ine d tha t A

N s 16, 17, an d 18 fa ile d to m ee t the Co m m iss ion ’ s R

ule 27 2 pl ea din g burd enf

or int er im r at es . T he Co m

m iss ionla te r de nie d T ri -S ta te ’ s m oti on 3 fo r a re he ar ing of

the inter im

r at e ca se , statin g th at

“ [t ] his D oc ke t i s c los ed

. ” T he 4 Co m m iss ion , by

it s own w or ds, m ad e a fi na l de te rm ina tio n th at the c as e fo r T ri

5 St at e’ s in te ri m

r at es w oul d no t be h ear d be ca use T ri -S ta te ’ s a dvi ce not ic es did not 6 sa tis fy the bur de n im

pose d by the Co m m iss ion ’ s r eg ula tio ns. 7 { 37} It is al so the re pe tit ive na tur e of iss ue s such as tho se in this c as e tha t c om pe ls 8 us to de ny the m ot io n t o d i s miss th is ap pe al ba se d o n m oo tn es s. See Co bb v

. Sta te 9 Ca nv ass ing

B d. , 200 6- N MS C- 034, ¶

¶ 23, 29- 31, 140 N
. M. 77, 140 P
. 3d 4 98 ( hol din g 10 tha t w e m ay

r ev ie wm oot

c as es that e ith er (1 ) pr es ent i ssu es of sub stanti al pub lic 11 int er es t or

( 2) a re c ap ab le of

r ep et iti on y et

e va de r ev ie w ); H

ow el l v. H

ei m , 199 4- 12 N MS C- 103, ¶

7, 118 N.M. 50 0, 88 2 P
. 2d 5 41 ( af fi rm ing astate a ge nc y ’ s auth or ity 13 to p ro m

ulg at e a re gul at iondur ing af ini te -t er m bud ge tary cr isi s—e ve n af te r the c ri sis 14 in questi on had pass ed—because the a pp e ar anc e o f

s i m ilar issues in such ti m e-lim ited 15 ci rc um stanc es is subj ec t t o r ep et iti on ); Sta te e x re l. N. M

. P ress A ss’ n v . Ka ufm an , 16 1982 -N MS C- 060, ¶

2 3 , 9 8 N
. M. 261 , 648 P
. 2d 3 00 ( ad dr es sin g m oot iss ue s r eg ar din g 17 the right of the m edia to cover a tr ial, which conclud ed before the a ppellate review 18 of the de nia l of

m ed ia access, be ca

use sim ilar m ed iaa cc es s qu es tio ns w oul d li ke ly25

1 ri se a ga in i n f

uture tr ia ls)

. T ri -S ta te ’ s br ie fi ng i n th is C ourt r ep re se nts that i t 2 atte m pte d to w ith dr awthe r at e des ignin the 201 3 r at e ca se in or de r to r ev ise r at es f or 3 2014 , pur suant t o A

N 19, be cau se it

w as c le ar

to T ri -S ta te that the Co m m iss ion 4 “ w oul d no t pe rm it the 201 3 r at es to be ef fe ct ive in N ewMe xic o be fo re T ri -S ta te 5 would need to file a newrate to be effe ctiv e in 2014 .” Tr i-State r eported in an 6 Oc tober 11, 2013, pleading filed for this appeal that four Tri- State N ewMexico 7 m em be rs ha d alr ea dy fi le d pr ote sts c onc er nin g A N 19. T his giv es us r ea son to b el ie ve 8 tha t t hi s di sp ut e i s r e pe t i t i ve a nd r e qu i r e s r e so l ut i on f or f ut ur e gu i danc e i n sim ilar 9 situatio ns. T he suspens ion of rates in this case forced T ri-Sta te to set other rates e ven 10 be fo re ar es olu tio n inthe sus pe nde d- rate c as e. T he Co m m iss ionc oul d r ep eate dly 11 charac terize Tr i-State’ s subs equent advice notices as request s for interim rate relief 12 an d r ej ec t the m

f or fa ilure to m ee t the ple ad ing bur de n fo r int er im rate r el ie f re que sts 13 in Rule 27(A)- (C) until this Court clarifie s the Com m issio n’ s authority over the rates 14 of G &T Co ops. A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e tha t the iss ue s inthi s c as e ar e not m oot , 15 an d w e de ny

K it Cars on’ s m oti on t o di sm iss

. 16 III. CON CLU SION 17 { 38} W e v acat e th e Co m m is si on ’s M arch 13 , 20 13 , Orde r in Cas e No. 1 3- 00 03 7- UT 18 an d r em an d f

or any pr oc ee din gs tha t m ay

be ne ce ssary

in or de r to co m

ply w iththi s26

1 opi nio n. 2 { 39} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 4 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice 5 WE CO NCUR:

6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 7 BARBAR

A J. VIGIL, Ch ief Justice

8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 9 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 11 RIC HAR

D C . B OSSON , Just ice

12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 13 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice