The burden shall be on the party appealing to show that the order appealed from is unreasonable, or unlawful. History: Laws 1941, ch. 84, § 69; 1941 Comp., § 72-904; 1953 Comp., § 68-9-4; Laws 1965, ch. 289, § 17. Compiler's notes. — Sections 62-11-1 to 62-11-6 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of Chapter 62, Article 6 by Laws 1998, Chapter 108, Section 82, effective July 1, 2003 Chapter 108, Section 82 was repealed prior to taking effect by Chapter 23, Section 1, Laws 2003. Although Laws 2003, Chapter 336, Section 8, amended Laws 1998, Chapter 82, as amended, an amendment of a repealed section is ineffective.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 Laws 2003, Chapter 416, Section 5 also repealed Laws 1998, Chapter 108, Section 82, as amended, a second time, however, that repeal is of no effect as the section had previously been repealed by Chapter 23, Section 1, Laws 2003. Standard of review. — On appeal, the court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the order appealed from, determines whether the order was supported by substantial evidence, was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and was within the commission's scope of authority. Plains Elec. Generation & Transmission Coop. v. N.M. Pub. Util. Comm'n , 1998-NMSC-038, 126 N.M. 152, 967 P.2d 827. Grounds required for reversal. — The party challenging a commission decision must show that agency action falls within one of the oft-mentioned grounds for reversal, including: whether the decision is arbitrary and capricious; whether it is supported by substantial evidence; and whether it represents an abuse of the agency's discretion by being outside the scope of the agency's authority, clear error, or violative of due process. Morningstar Water Users Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Util. Comm'n , 1995-NMSC-062, 120 N.M. 579, 904 P.2d 28. Burden of proving construction was not commenced in time. — The burden was on petitioners-landowners, as the moving parties before the commission, to demonstrate by substantial evidence, and thereby prove to the commission, that electrical cooperative failed to commence construction of a transmission line and related facilities within the time prescribed by Section 62-9-4 NMSA 1978. Lone Mountain Cattle Co. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n , 1972-NMSC-008, 83 N.M. 465, 493 P.2d 950. When commission's construction of certificate and statutes is binding. — The commission's construction of the certificate issued by it and the statutes governing its operation was binding on review, unless this construction was unreasonable or unlawful. Lone Mountain Cattle Co. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n , 1972-NMSC-008, 83 N.M. 465, 493 P.2d 950. Utility's request for proposal process was not arbitrary or capricious. — Where the public service company of New Mexico (PNM) submitted an application for the public regulation commission (PRC) to approve its renewable energy procurement plan for the year 2018, and where, in its application, PNM sought to demonstrate its compliance with the Renewable Energy Act, 62-16-1 to -10 NMSA 1978, requirements and obtain the PRC's approval of renewable energy procurements, the PRC's approval of PNM's solar energy procurement plan was not unreasonable or unlawful, because PNM's request for proposal (RFP) gave all bidders a fair opportunity to participate and compete for PNM's selection, and evidence in the record demonstrates that the challenged aspects of PNM's RFP were consistent with industry standards. N.M. Indus. Energy Consumers v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n , 2019-NMSC-015. Public Regulation Commission's summary fact-finding procedure denied qualifying facility due process. — In a case that arose under the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), which was designed to encourage the development of small power production facilities in order to diversify the nation's energy sources and thereby reduce the demand for traditional fossil fuels, where appellant filed a petition with the New Mexico public regulation commission (PRC), contending that it is a "qualifying facility" under PURPA and requested that the PRC enter an order declaring that Lea county electric is obligated under PURPA to purchase the energy and capacity that appellant produces and determine the proper "avoided costs" Lea county electric is required to pay appellant for its energy and capacity, and where the PRC determined that it would process appellant's filing as a complaint subject to the formal complaint process set forth in its rules of procedure and not as a petition for a declaratory order, and where the PRC further summarily dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the affidavits and supporting documentation constituted substantial evidence that Lea county electric transferred its mandatory purchase obligation to another electric utility which served as Lea county electric's "full-requirements" supplier, the New Mexico supreme court vacated and annulled the PRC's final order, because the summary fact-finding procedure employed by the PRC violated due process when it precluded appellant from presenting evidence and developing a record on the disputed full-requirements issue. The PRC's decision was also not supported by substantial evidence, and was therefore arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. D Resolute Wind 1 LLC v. N.M. Pub. Regul. Comm'n , 2022-NMSC-011. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 73B C.J.S. Public Utilities §§ 126 to 128.
‹ Prev All New Mexico sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.