Opinion ID: 1387075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the scope of the public utility act

Text: Since this case concerns water services we shall limit our discussion of the PUA as it applies to water providers. The policy behind the PUA is to regulate and supervise public utilities so that adequate services will be available at reasonable rates, and to encourage the development of utilities without unnecessary duplication and economic waste. Section 62-3-1(B). In common usage the expression public utility would connote any utility service provided to the public. Within the PUA, however, the expression public utility is a specialized term of art that by no means encompasses every type of water utility that provides service to the public. The meaning of public utility in the PUA is set forth by Section 62-3-3. In referring to water facilities, subsection (G) of this statute defines public utility or utility as every person not engaged solely in interstate business . . . that now does or hereafter may own, operate, lease or control ... any plant, property or facility for the supplying, storage, distribution or furnishing to or for the public of water for manufacturing, municipal, domestic or other uses. Section 62-3-3(G) (emphasis added). Subsection (E) of this statute defines person as individuals, firms, partnerships, companies, rural electric cooperatives. . ., corporations and lessees, [and] trustees or receivers appointed by any court. Section 62-3-3(E). This broad meaning of public utility is greatly restricted by all the other interrelated statutory and regulatory provisions that delineate the scope of the PUA. There are many different kinds of water providers and water authorities in the New Mexico legal system. Some are affirmatively included in the PUA and fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission while others are explicitly excluded. Several types of water authorities are not mentioned at all in the context of the PUA; they are neither expressly included or excluded. The appendix following this opinion reflects our research of New Mexico law as it relates to different types of water providers. The PUA attempts to distinguish on the one hand utilities that are required to serve any and all members of the public who request water service and on the other hand utilities that operate more like a private coalition or club that chooses to limit its services only to its own select members. The PUA applies only to the former. The ambiguity of the Commission's jurisdiction is exposed when a private water coalition like Morningstar becomes quite large and begins to act more like a public utility by bidding on contracts and enlarging its geographical reach. Among those expressly brought within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and relevant to this case, are municipal water providers that, by law, have elected to come within the terms of the PUA. As discussed in greater detail below, Section 62-3-3(E), includes municipalities that have elected to come within the terms of the Public Utility Act. The process by which the municipality can come within the PUA is described by Section 62-6-5. Utilities that are within the jurisdiction of the PUA can apply to the Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity which gives the utility the right to begin construction or operation. Section 62-9-1. A utility or service territory that is regulated by the PUA is often described as being certificated. See §§ 62-3-2.1(C), 62-9-1.1(A). Additionally, as explained below, the Commission has jurisdiction to hold hearings when a large municipality that is not within the PUA interferes with the territory of a PUA-certificated utility. Section 62-9-1.1(A). Also of relevance to this case is the fact that the PUA specifically protects mutual domestics. As discussed in greater detail below, mutual domestics were organized under the precursors to the Sanitary Projects Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 3-29-1 to -19 (Repl. Pamp.1995) [hereinafter SPA]. While mutual domestics are not actually regulated by the Commission, they are protected from encroachment under Section 62-9-1. Of the utilities that are excluded from the PUA, municipalities that have not elected to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commission are relevant to this case. These will be analyzed below. The status of the above mentioned water providers is clearthey are either included in or excluded from the terms of the PUA. There are a number of providers that the PUA and the Commission's regulations do not explicitly include or exclude. The providers in this group that are pertinent to this case are water users' associations which are governed by NMSA 1978, §§ 73-5-1 to -9 (Orig.Pamp. & Cum.Supp.1995). As discussed below, we conclude that, with certain possible exceptions, any utility not expressly brought within the scope of the PUA is excluded from the Commission's jurisdiction. We must now establish which of these categories of water providers apply to Farmington and Morningstar.