2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 62 - Electric, Gas and Water Utilities › Article 6 - Powers and Duties of Commission › Section 62-6-4 - Supervision and regulation of utilities.

A. The commission shall have general and exclusive power and jurisdiction to regulate and supervise every public utility in respect to its rates and service regulations and in respect to its securities, all in accordance with the provisions and subject to the reservations of the Public Utility Act [Chapter 62, Articles 1 to 6 and 8 to 13 NMSA 1978], and to do all things necessary and convenient in the exercise of its power and jurisdiction. Nothing in this section, however, shall be deemed to confer upon the commission power or jurisdiction to regulate or supervise the rates or service of any utility owned and operated by any municipal corporation either directly or through a municipally owned corporation or owned and operated by any H class county, by a class B county as defined in Section 4-36-8 NMSA 1978 or by a class A county as described by Section 4-36-10 NMSA 1978 either directly or through a corporation owned by or under contract with an H class county, by a class B county as defined in Section 4-36-8 NMSA 1978 or by a class A county as described by Section 4-36-10 NMSA 1978 or the rates, service, securities or class I or class II transactions of a generation and transmission cooperative. No inspection or supervision fees shall be paid by generation and transmission cooperatives, or by such municipalities or municipally owned corporations, a class B county as defined in Section 4-36-8 NMSA 1978, a class A county as described by Section 4-36-10 NMSA 1978 or H class counties or such corporation owned by or under contract with a class B county as defined in Section 4-36-8 NMSA 1978, a class A county as described by Section 4-36-10 NMSA 1978 or an H class county with respect to operations conducted in a class B county as defined in Section 4-36-8 NMSA 1978, in a class A county as described by Section 4-36-10 NMSA 1978 or in H class counties.
B. The sale, furnishing or delivery of gas, water or electricity by any person to a utility for resale to or for the public shall be subject to regulation by the commission but only to the extent necessary to enable the commission to determine that the cost to the utility of the gas, water or electricity at the place where the major distribution to the public begins is reasonable and that the methods of delivery of the gas, water or electricity are adequate; provided, however, that nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit regulation by the commission with respect to a generation and transmission cooperative, except location control pursuant to Section 62-9-3 NMSA 1978 and limited rate regulation to the extent provided in Subsection D of this section, or of production or sale price at the wellhead of gas or petroleum.
C. The sale, furnishing or delivery of coal, uranium or other fuels by any affiliated interest to a utility for the generation of electricity for the public shall be subject to regulation by the commission but only to the extent necessary to enable the commission to determine that the cost to the utility of the coal, uranium or other fuels at the point of sale is reasonable and that the methods of delivery of the electricity are adequate; provided, however, that nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit regulation by the commission of production or sale price at the wellhead of gas or petroleum. Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit regulation by the commission of production or sale price at the point of production of coal, uranium or other fuels.
D. New Mexico rates proposed by a generation and transmission cooperative shall be filed with the commission in the form of an advice notice, a copy of which shall be simultaneously served on all member utilities. Any member utility may file a protest of the proposed rates no later than twenty days after the generation and transmission cooperative files the advice notice. If three or more New Mexico member utilities file protests and the commission determines there is just cause in at least three of the protests for reviewing the proposed rates, the commission shall suspend the rates, conduct a hearing concerning reasonableness of the proposed rates and establish reasonable rates. Each protest must contain a clear and concise statement of the specific grounds upon which the protestant believes the proposed rates are unreasonable or otherwise unlawful; a brief description of the protestant's efforts to resolve its objections directly with the generation and transmission cooperative; a clear and concise statement of the relief the protestant seeks from the commission; and a formal resolution of the board of trustees of the protesting member utility authorizing the filing of the protest. In order to determine whether just cause may exist for review, the commission shall consider whether each protestant has exhausted remedies with the generation and transmission cooperative or whether the generation and transmission cooperative has unreasonably rejected the protestant's objections to the proposed rates. A member utility shall present its objections to the generation and transmission cooperative in writing and allow a reasonable period for the generation and transmission cooperative to attempt resolution of, or otherwise respond to, those objections. A period of seven days after receipt of written objections will be deemed reasonable for the generation and transmission cooperative to provide a written response to the member utility, but a written response is not required if such time period extends beyond twenty days after the date on which the generation and transmission cooperative filed the advice notice. The generation and transmission cooperative and its members are expected to make a good faith effort to resolve the member utility's objections to the proposed rates during that period of time.
E. As used in this section, "generation and transmission cooperative" means a person with generation or transmission facilities either organized as a rural electric cooperative pursuant to Laws 1937, Chapter 100 or the Rural Electric Cooperative Act [Chapter 62, Article 15 NMSA 1978] or organized in another state and providing sales of electric power to member cooperatives in this state.
History:
Laws 1941, ch. 84, § 17; 1941 Comp., § 72-504; 1953 Comp., § 68-5-4; Laws 1963, ch. 55, § 1; 1977, ch. 73, § 1; 1980, ch. 85, § 2; 1993, ch. 308, § 4; 1996, ch. 83, § 4; 2000, ch. 85, § 1; 2003, ch. 277, § 1.
ANNOTATIONS
Compiler's notes.
— Sections 62-6-4 to 62-6-26.1 of the Public Utility Act are still effective as the repeal of Chapter 62, Article 6 by Laws 1998, Chapter 108, Section 82, effective July 1, 2003 Chapter 108, Section 82 was repealed prior to taking effect by Chapter 23, Section 1, Laws 2003. Although Laws 2003, Chapter 336, Section 8, amended Laws 1998, Chapter 82, as amended, an amendment of a repealed section is ineffective.
See
Quintana v. N.M. Dep't of Corrs., 100 N.M. 224, 668 P.2d 1101 (1983). Laws 2003, Chapter 416, Section 5 also repealed Laws 1998, Chapter 108, Section 82, as amended, a second time, however, that repeal is of no effect as the section had previously been repealed by Chapter 23, Section 1, Laws 2003.
Cross references.
— For regulation of foreign municipal corporations distributing electricity in state,
see
62-1-6 NMSA 1978.
For option of municipal corporations and class H counties to be regulated,
see
62-3-3E and 62-6-5 NMSA 1978.
For service regulations,
see
62-6-19 NMSA 1978.
For meter regulations,
see
62-6-20 to 62-6-22 NMSA 1978.
For safety regulations,
see
62-6-24 NMSA 1978.
For municipal utilities generally,
see
3-23-1 to 3-23-10, 3-24-1 to 3-24-10, 3-25-1 to 3-25-6, 3-26-1 to 3-26-3, 3-27-1 to 3-27-9, 3-28-1 to 3-28-20 NMSA 1978.
For approval of water and sanitation district rates,
see
73-21-16 L NMSA 1978.
The 2003 amendment,
effective April 8, 2003, deleted "as defined in the Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act of 1999" following "and transmission cooperative" in Subsections A and B and added Subsection E.
The 2000 amendment,
effective March 7, 2000, in Subsection A, added "or the rates, service, securities or class I or class II transactions of a generation and transmission cooperative as defined in the Electric Industry Restructuring Act of 1999" at the end of the second sentence, inserted "generation and transmission cooperatives, or by" near the beginning of the third sentence; in Subsection B, inserted the phrase beginning "with respect to a generation" and ending "to the extent provided in Subsection D of this section, or" and deleted "except regulation of abandonment pursuant to Section 62-7-8 NMSA 1978" from the end, as well as from Subsection C following "gas or petroleum"; and added Subsection D.
The 1996 amendment,
effective March 6, 1996, in Subsection A, inserted "a class A county as described by Section 4-36-10 NMSA 1978", and made stylistic changes.
The 1993 amendment,
effective April 8, 1993, in Subsection A, substituted "reservations" for "reservation" in the first sentence, divided the former second sentence into the present second and third sentences, and inserted references to a class B county as defined in Section 4-36-8 NMSA 1978 in two places in the second sentence and in three places in the third sentence; and in Subsection B and the first sentence of Subsection C, made stylistic changes.
Express jurisdiction over rates is given to commission.
— This section vests in the commission express jurisdiction, among other things, to regulate and supervise every public utility as respects its rates.
Potash Co. of Am. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
, 1956-NMSC-091, 62 N.M. 1, 303 P.2d 908.
Including jurisdiction over increase in contract rate.
— Where the commission had entered an order authorizing a public utility to enter into a contract and to continue to charge the gas rate therein specified until further notice and on the ex parte petition of the utility subsequently entered an interlocutory order making a rate increase to be effective until the commission could hold a hearing to determine and set a new and proper rate, the commission was moving strictly in conformity with the act creating it to determine one of the major questions submitted to its jurisdiction - a question of rates.
Potash Co. of Am. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
, 1956-NMSC-091, 62 N.M. 1, 303 P.2d 908.
Sanitary projects association not a public utility.
— A sanitary projects association (
see
Article 29 of Chapter 3 NMSA 1978) was not transformed into a public utility by selling water to a limited number of nonmember water haulers and was not subject to the public service commission's (now public regulation commission's) regulatory jurisdiction.
El Vadito De Los Cerrillos Water Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
, 1993-NMSC-041, 115 N.M. 784, 858 P.2d 1263.
Commission is vested with considerable discretion
in determining whether a rate to be received and charged is just and reasonable.
Hobbs Gas Co. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
, 1980-NMSC-005, 94 N.M. 731, 616 P.2d 1116.
Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction over rate disputes.
— Neither N.M. Const., art. XI, § 7 (now repealed) nor the Telephone and Telegraph Company Certification Act grants the state corporation commission (now public regulation commission) general power and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving rates charged by a telephone company.
First Cent. Serv. Corp. v. Mountain Bell Tel.
, 1981-NMCA-012, 95 N.M. 509, 623 P.2d 1023 (decided prior to 1996 amendment to N.M. Const., art. XI, § 2.
Scope of authority.
— Commission staff had the capacity to conduct settlement negotiations to determine the rate treatment of a utility's ownership interest in a nuclear generating station.
Attorney Gen. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
, 1991-NMSC-028, 111 N.M. 636, 808 P.2d 606.
Regulation of "optional utility programs."
— Commission had jurisdiction to require utility to establish a corporate subsidiary for purposes of instituting gas and electric "optional utility programs," which included surge suppression, maintenance and repair services, information services, and power quality solutions.
PNM Elec. Servs. v. N.M. Pub. Util. Comm'n
, 1998-NMSC-017, 125 N.M. 302, 961 P.2d 147.
Complete remedy for testing rates provided.
— The Public Utility Act envelops the commission with an aura of broad power and jurisdiction to determine just and reasonable rates and sets up a complete remedy within the framework of the act for testing their propriety and reasonableness.
Potash Co. of Am. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
, 1956-NMSC-091, 62 N.M. 1, 303 P.2d 908.
Reasonable variations in rates permissible.
— Subsection D of this section explicitly authorizes the New Mexico public regulation commission to conduct a hearing concerning the reasonableness of proposed rates and establish reasonable rates; rates incorporating unreasonable differences or discriminations would be unreasonable under Subsection D; there is nothing in the statute, however, indicating that the legislature intended to impose a flat ban on reasonable variations in utility rates of service between localities due to differing costs of service to different areas.
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2015-NMSC-013.
Where generation and transmission cooperative filed with the New Mexico public regulation commission new advice notices setting interim utility rates, during the pendency of a suspended new utility rate design, that set one rate for protesting members of the cooperative and a different rate for non-protesting members of the cooperative, the commission's decision to reject the advice notices, claiming that they were discriminatory as a matter of law, was contrary to law; this section does not prohibit reasonable variations in utility rates, and the New Mexico supreme court held that the rates that the generation and transmission cooperative prescribe were not unreasonably discriminatory and there was no evidence otherwise of unreasonable discrimination.
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2015-NMSC-013.
Authority over generation and transmission cooperatives.
— Subsection D of this section is the only Public Utility Act's source of the New Mexico public regulation commission's authority over the utility rates of a generation and transmission cooperative.
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2015-NMSC-013.
Where generation and transmission cooperative filed with the New Mexico public regulation commission new advice notices setting interim utility rates, during the pendency of a suspended new utility rate design, that set one rate for protesting members of the cooperative and a different rate for non-protesting members of the cooperative, the commission's reliance on 62-8-6 NMSA 1978 to reject the advice notices, claiming that they were discriminatory as a matter of law, was contrary to law; 62-8-6 NMSA 1978 cannot be the source of the commission's authority to disapprove the rates of a generation and transmission cooperative when the language of 62-8-6 NMSA 1978 expressly applies only to public utilities, and when Subsection D of this section is the only Public Utility Act's source of the commission's authority over the utility rates of generation and transmission cooperatives.
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2015-NMSC-013.
A hearing concerning reasonableness is mandatory following a determination of "just cause".
— When the New Mexico public regulation commission determines just cause in at least three protests of any generation and transmission cooperative advice notice, Subsection D of this section requires a commission hearing on the reasonableness of the protested rates, without distinguishing between interim and permanent rates.
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2015-NMSC-013.
Where generation and transmission cooperative filed with the New Mexico public regulation commission new advice notices setting interim utility rates, during the pendency of a suspended new utility rate design, that set one rate for protesting members of the cooperative and a different rate for non-protesting members of the cooperative, the commission's decision to reject the advice notices without a hearing on reasonableness, claiming that the interim rate design was identical to the suspended rate design, was contrary to law; following a determination of just cause in at least three protests of any generation and transmission cooperative advice notice, Subsection D of this section requires a commission hearing on the reasonableness of the protested rates, without distinguishing between interim and permanent rates.
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2015-NMSC-013.
Public Regulation Commission Rule 27 does not apply to generation and transmission cooperatives.
— Rule 27, the New Mexico public regulation commission's regulation establishing that a utility has the burden of supporting its interim rate relief request with evidence, is a form of relief from the rate-making powers the commission exercises over public utilities and not over generation and transmission cooperatives.
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2015-NMSC-013.
Where generation and transmission cooperative filed with the New Mexico public regulation commission new advice notices setting interim utility rates, during the pendency of a suspended new utility rate design, that set one rate for protesting members of the cooperative and a different rate for non-protesting members of the cooperative, the commission's decision to reject the advice notices without a hearing, claiming the advice notices lacked the evidentiary support required by Rule 27, which establishes that a utility has the burden of supporting its interim rate relief request with evidence, was contrary to law; interim rate relief is a concept unique to public utilities because the only way a public utility can change its rates is by commission approval; a generation and transmission cooperative does not need to seek the commission's approval for interim rates because a generation and transmission cooperative can agree to a new rate and file that new rate pursuant to Subsection D of this section without requesting interim rate relief under Rule 27, and Subsection D does not require a generation and transmission cooperative to carry any burden of proof or pleading in order to set its rates.
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2015-NMSC-013.
Requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies is constitutional.
— The requirement of the Public Utility Act that a person first exhaust his administrative remedy before resorting to the courts does not violate N.M. Const., art. VI, § 13, granting general jurisdiction to the district courts except as elsewhere limited in such constitution.
Smith v. Southern Union Gas Co.
, 1954-NMSC-033, 58 N.M. 197, 269 P.2d 745.
Public service commission's (now public regulation commission's) order unconstitutional.
— Orders of the public service commission (now public regulation commission) that effectively deregulated the retail side of the electric power industry in New Mexico in the absence of a statutory mandate from the legislature exceeded the commission's authority and violated the separation of powers doctrine.
State ex rel. Sandel v. N.M. Pub. Util. Comm'n
, 1999-NMSC-019, 127 N.M. 272, 980 P.2d 55.
All utilities not municipally owned are subject to commission's jurisdiction.
— Under the Public Utility Act, the public regulation commission has no jurisdiction over public utilities that are owned and operated by a municipal corporation, unless they agree otherwise.
City of Sunland Park v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2004-NMCA-024, 135 N.M. 143, 85 P.3d 267, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-002, 135 N.M. 169, 86 P.3d 47.
Power of commission does not extend to acts of utility not affecting its public duties;
its jurisdiction is limited to matters or controversies wherein the rights of a utility and the public are involved. Its duties begin and end with conservation of the public interest, and are not concerned with individual rights of private litigants, and, ordinarily, it has no power to adjudicate purely private matters between a utility and an individual, or between two utilities.
Southwestern Pub. Serv. Co. v. Artesia Alfalfa Growers' Ass'n
, 1960-NMSC-052, 67 N.M. 108, 353 P.2d 62.
Jurisdiction of condemnation proceedings.
Because the 2000 amendment to Subsection A of this section exempted generation and transmission cooperatives from the regulatory jurisdiction of the public regulation commission, the commission lacked jurisdiction to consider an application under Section 42A-1-9 NMSA 1978 by a generation and transmission cooperative to enter and survey land for condemnation suitability studies.
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n. v. King
, 2003-NMSC-029, 134 N.M. 467, 78 P.3d 1226.
No power to alter common-law rule regarding allocation of relocation costs.
Because the legislature has not empowered the public regulation commission to alter the common-law rule permitting local governments to require utilities to bear the costs of system relocation required by public safety, the commission could not prohibit a city from requiring the Public Service Company of New Mexico to bear the costs of relocation required by ordinance where the commission did not find the ordinance to be unreasonable.
City of Albuquerque v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2003-NMSC-028, 134 N.M. 472, 79 P.3d 297.
Construction and enforcement of private contracts are for courts, not commission.
— The commission, under the broad powers given it by the legislature, has the right to pass upon the question of whether or not a public utility may enter into a given contract, because of the effect such contract may have upon the power of the utility to carry out its purposes, but when a contract is once entered into, its construction and interpretation, and the rights growing out of the same, including the right to terminate, are to be determined by the courts. Power to pass on validity of a private contract or to enforce its provision is entrusted exclusively to the courts.
Southwestern Pub. Serv. Co. v. Artesia Alfalfa Growers' Ass'n
, 1960-NMSC-052, 67 N.M. 108, 353 P.2d 62.
Lawsuits involving utility with private parties.
— The power in Subsection A of this section to "regulate and supervise" does not preempt lawsuits involving contracts a utility enters into with private parties.
Summit Prop., Inc. v. Public Serv. Co. of N.M.
, 2005-NMCA-090, 138 N.M. 208, 118 P.3d 716, cert. denied, 2005-NMCERT-007, 138 N.M. 145, 117 P.3d 951.
Connection fees.
— Where there is nothing to indicate that the commission approved of the specific amount to be rebated in the form of connection fees, without approval by the commission, the connection fees cannot be categorized as "filed rates".
Summit Prop., Inc. v. Public Serv. Co. of N.M.
, 2005-NMCA-090, 138 N.M. 208, 118 P.3d 716, cert. denied, 2005-NMCERT-007, 138 N.M. 145, 117 P.3d 951.
Contract between utility and consortium of municipalities excluded.
— Commission acted within its jurisdiction in excluding from jurisdictional rates a contract between a utility and a consortium of municipalities for the purchase of electricity, where exclusion of the contract in no way affected the municipalities' contract; it only affected the utility's ability to recover the cost of the contract from New Mexico consumers.
Public Serv. Co. v. N.M. Public Serv. Comm'n
, 1991-NMSC-018, 111 N.M. 622, 808 P.2d 592.
Rate increases to compensate predecessor utility for expenses.
— The public service commission (now public regulation commission) did not have jurisdiction over rate increases requested by a natural gas distribution company to compensate the company's predecessor, which was not currently a public utility, for expenses incurred by the latter in fulfilling its function as a public utility.
Southern Union Gas Co. v. N.M. Pub. Util. Comm'n
, 1997-NMSC-056, 124 N.M. 176, 947 P.2d 133.
Commission has the general and exclusive power to regulate a public utility's rates.
— Where PNM appealed the New Mexico public regulation commission's (commission) denial of recovery in its rate base for the repurchase of 64.1 MW of capacity and certain lease renewals at Palo Verde nuclear generating station (Palo Verde), and where the commission had previously authorized PNM to exercise its options to either renew the leases or repurchase the capacity in accordance with the terms of the leases, PNM was required to demonstrate the prudence of its decisions at Palo Verde for ratemaking purposes because the commission has the general and exclusive power to regulate a public utility's rates regardless of prior authorizations.
Public Serv. Co. of N.M. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2019-NMSC-012.
Where PNM appealed the New Mexico public regulation commission's (commission) denial of recovery in its rate base for the repurchase of 64.1 MW of capacity and certain lease renewals at Palo Verde nuclear generating station (Palo Verde), sufficient evidence supported the commission's finding that PNM's decisions were imprudent on the basis that PNM had failed to demonstrate that it considered alternative courses of action where the evidence established that PNM's latest integrated resource plan did not test extension of the leases and purchase of the capacity at Palo Verde against a wide range of futures/scenarios and input assumptions.
Public Serv. Co. of N.M. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2019-NMSC-012.
Where PNM appealed the New Mexico public regulation commission's (commission) decision to deny it recovery for the costs of converting certain San Juan generating station units to a balanced draft system, which is designed to reduce fugitive emissions, on the grounds that PNM had failed to demonstrate that these costs were prudently incurred, the commission was within its authority in denying recovery, because the commission's finding that balanced draft was included in the permits for San Juan at PNM's request and not because it was required by the applicable environmental regulation was a finding specifically concerning the reasonableness of costs PNM was seeking to include in its rate base and was squarely within the authority of the commission to regulate the rates of public utilities and the obligation of the commission to ensure that those rates are just and reasonable.
Public Serv. Co. of N.M. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2019-NMSC-012.
Where the New Mexico public regulation commission included in PNM's rate base a $137.8 million prepaid pension asset (PPA), which is the amount by which investor contributions to a pension trust and earnings on those contributions exceed expenses, the commission did not err in allowing PNM to recover $137.8 million for its PPA because there was substantial evidence to support the commission's determination that the PPA was investor, rather than ratepayer, funded and the commission's decision was in accordance with law.
Public Serv. Co. of N.M. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2019-NMSC-012.
Denial of due process.
— Where PNM appealed the New Mexico public regulation commission's (commission) denial of recovery in its rate base for the repurchase of 64.1 MW of capacity and certain lease renewals at Palo Verde nuclear generating station (Palo Verde), and where the commission found that PNM's actions in renewing and reacquiring the leases exposed ratepayers to costs associated with nuclear decommissioning responsibilities that likely would not have been incurred had an alternative resource other than nuclear been selected and denied recovery for all future nuclear decommissioning costs, the commission denied PNM's right to due process of law, because PNM was not given sufficient notice of a potential permanent disallowance of all recovery for its future contributions to the nuclear decommissioning trusts and was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue..
Public Serv. Co. of N.M. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
, 2019-NMSC-012.
If wellhead transactions are not involved.
— Subsection B makes it abundantly clear that the commission can disallow, for rate-making purposes, any portion of a price paid by a utility which the commission finds to be unreasonable unless wellhead transactions are involved.
Maestas v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
, 1973-NMSC-096, 85 N.M. 571, 514 P.2d 847.
Commission may not order that refund be passed on to consumers.
— Commission has no express or implied statutory authority to order the flow-through of refunds to electric company from power supplier to consumers.
N.M. Elec. Serv. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
, 1970-NMSC-097, 81 N.M. 683, 472 P.2d 648.
Where refund is not trust fund for consumers.
— Where refund was ordered paid over to power company by the federal power commission without any restrictions, and there was nothing in the order indicating an intention on the part of the commission to create a "trust fund" for the benefit of the ultimate consumers, the refund did not constitute a trust fund belonging to company's customers.
N.M. Elec. Serv. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
, 1970-NMSC-097, 81 N.M. 683, 472 P.2d 648.
Commission's duty under Subsection C.
— Commission is only required to find the ultimate fact, that being the reasonableness of the cost of fuel to a utility under Subsection C, and is not required to give reasons for its decision or to make a finding that is not an ultimate finding, such as the arms-length nature of transaction between utility and affiliate from which it purchased the fuel.
Attorney Gen. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
, 1984-NMSC-081, 101 N.M. 549, 685 P.2d 957.
Exemption from state antitrust law.
— Arrangements between utilities approved and regulated by commission acting under statutory authority are exempt from state antitrust law.
Gonzales v. Public Serv. Comm'n
, 1985-NMSC-038, 102 N.M. 529, 697 P.2d 948.
Supervision of transactions with affiliates and nonaffiliates distinguished.
— Normal burden to be met in making a prima facie case regarding costs incurred in transactions with nonaffiliates is a demonstration that the costs were, in fact, incurred; however, the normal burden regarding costs incurred in transactions with affiliates is heavier, requiring a showing of the reasonableness of the costs.
Attorney Gen. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
, 1984-NMSC-081, 101 N.M. 549, 685 P.2d 957.
Commission's general jurisdiction includes safety regulations and inspections.
— The general and exclusive power and jurisdiction to regulate and supervise every public utility in respect to its rates and service regulations includes the power to make safety regulations and enforce them through inspections. 1972 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 72-35.
General jurisdiction does not cover water and sanitation districts.
— The legislature did not intend to place water and sanitation districts under the general jurisdiction of the commission. 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 71-56.
Approving water and sanitation district rates.
— Water and sanitation districts have not been declared to be subject to the jurisdiction of the commission except in the limited area of approving the district board's rates, tolls and charges. 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 71-56.
It is the commission's duty to protect not only the utility but also its patrons.
1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-81.
Rules and regulations have force of law.
— The rules and regulations of the commission duly adopted under this section and Section 62-6-24 NMSA 1978 have the force and effect of law which a utility must obey. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-81.
Compliance with rules excuses discontinuance of service under hazardous conditions.
— Compliance with rules of the commission permitting a public utility to immediately discontinue service in the event of a condition determined by the utility to be hazardous would be a defense to a criminal action upon a refusal to render electric service, but the burden would be upon the utility to produce some evidence that the condition was actually hazardous if the criminal action was brought against it, and to prove the existence of the rule itself. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-81.
All utilities not municipally owned are subject to commission's jurisdiction.
— The commission is given authority by virtue of this section to regulate and supervise every private utility in respect to its rates and service regulations. This same statute specifically withholds from the commission any jurisdiction to regulate or supervise the rates or service of any utility owned and operated by a municipal corporation either directly or through a municipally owned corporation unless said municipality shall exercise its option to come within the provisions of the Public Utility Act as provided in Section 62-6-5 NMSA 1978. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 57-101.
The commission is not empowered to regulate or supervise the service and rates set by municipally owned utilities either in or outside the corporate limits. 1943 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 43-4395.
Commission's jurisdiction exempts utilities from liquefied petroleum gas statutes.
— A public utility is exempt from the provisions of the law applicable to liquefied petroleum gases (Section 70-5-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.). The law places the general and exclusive power and jurisdiction to regulate and supervise every public utility in the commission. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 62-07.
Commission may delegate some of its authority over liquefied petroleum gas utilities.
— The commission is authorized by this section and by the common law to delegate its authority to inspect and test liquefied petroleum gas utilities to the liquefied petroleum gas commission (now construction industries commission). Only the public service commission (now public regulation commission) can promulgate safety regulations, however, and it must make the final order regarding any violations of regulations. 1972 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 72-35.
Unregulated village must comply with liquefied petroleum gas statutes.
— Inasmuch as municipally operated and owned utilities are not subject to regulation by the commission (unless there has been a local option election), a village is required to comply with provisions relating to liquefied petroleum gas. 1948 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 48-5156.
Commission may disallow unreasonable gas prices in fixing rates.
— This section gives the commission some authority to review the prices of certain intrastate sales of natural gas to a utility. However, the nature of this grant of authority is the power only to determine whether the sale prices set by the parties are unreasonable (i.e., outside of a range of acceptable prices), in which case they should be disallowed for rate-making purposes, as expenses of the utility. This authority of the commission to determine the reasonableness of prices is limited to sales other than (i.e., after) the sale from the wellhead. 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 77-01.
Law reviews.
— For article, "Constitutional Limitations on the Exercise of Judicial Functions by Administrative Agencies," see 7 Nat. Res. J. 599 (1967).
For note, "Conservation, Lifeline Rates and Public Utility Regulatory Commissions," see 19 Nat. Res. J. 411 (1979).
For comment, "Regulation of Electric Utilities and Affiliated Coal Companies - Determining Reasonable Expenses," see 26 Nat. Res. J. 851 (1986).
For note, "The Public Service Commission: A Legal Analysis of an Administrative System," see 3 N.M. L. Rev. 184 (1973).
For article, "State Regulation in a Deregulated Environment: A State-Level Regulator's Lament," see 27 Nat. Res. J. 799 (1988).
For article, "Cost of Service Indexing: An Analysis of New Mexico's Experiment in Public Utility Regulation," see 9 N.M. L. Rev. 287 (1979).
For 1984-88 survey of New Mexico administrative law, see 19 N.M. L. Rev. 575 (1990).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references.
— 64 Am. Jur. 2d Public Utilities §§ 9 to 15, 240.
Power of public service commission to increase franchise rates, 3 A.L.R. 730, 9 A.L.R. 1165, 28 A.L.R. 587, 29 A.L.R. 356.
State regulation of rates to consumers of gas or electricity transported across state lines for light or power purposes, 7 A.L.R. 1094.
Power of state to change contract rates, 9 A.L.R. 1423.
Patron's right to question reasonableness of public utility rate authorized by legislature, 12 A.L.R. 404.
Right of public service corporation to change rate while another rate is undetermined, 16 A.L.R. 1219.
Termination of federal control as restoring rates fixed by public service commission, 19 A.L.R. 684, 52 A.L.R. 296.
Valuations for rate making as affected by advance in price conditions due to war, 20 A.L.R. 555.
Right to fix new rate for public utility where court sets aside rate fixed by commission as confiscatory, 57 A.L.R. 146.
Power of state or municipality to fix minimum public utility rates, 68 A.L.R. 1002.
Power of state or public service commission to regulate rates of municipally owned or operated public utility, 76 A.L.R. 851, 127 A.L.R. 94.
Profit factor in determining rates for municipally owned or operated public utility, 90 A.L.R. 700.
Allowance for depletion or amortization in respect of natural resources in fixing rates, 91 A.L.R. 1413.
Prohibition as means of controlling action of commission as to rates, 115 A.L.R. 19, 159 A.L.R. 627.
Adequacy, as regards right to injunction, of other remedy for review of order fixing public utility rates, 8 A.L.R.2d 839.
Right of customers of public utility with respect to fund representing a refund from another supplying utility upon a reduction of latter's rates, 18 A.L.R.2d 1343.
Public utility's right to recover cost of nuclear power plants abandoned before completion, 83 A.L.R.4th 183.
Incidental provision of utility services, by party not in that business, as subject to regulation by state regulatory authority, 85 A.L.R.4th 894.
Public service commission's implied authority to order refund of public utility revenues, 41 A.L.R.5th 783.
73B C.J.S. Public Utilities § 68.