AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Appellants David A. Neal and Cristella Trujillo-Neal appealed the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission's (NMPRC) final order regarding Jemez Mountains Electric Cooperative, Inc.'s (JMEC) Compliance Filing Related to Tribal Right-of-Way Rate Rider Surcharge Reconciliation Adjustments. The dispute centered on the Rate Rider 4 surcharge, which recovers right-of-way fees from JMEC customers within the Pueblo of San Ildefonso boundaries, established by a 2012 NMPRC order. The appellants did not challenge the calculation method for the reconciliation of Rate Rider 4 but contested the legitimacy of the rate allocation methodology approved by the NMPRC in 2012, which they had not appealed at the time (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that the notice provided in the 2012 case was insufficient, violating their due process rights; the NMPRC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting the rate allocation methodology; the underlying right-of-way contracts were not validly formed; the rate setting denied them equal protection; they should not be estopped from challenging the rate allocation methodology; and the NMPRC acted arbitrarily in denying their Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration (para 3).
• Appellees: Defended the sufficiency of the notice and the legitimacy of the rate allocation methodology, and argued against the appellants' claims, supporting the denial of the Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration (paras 8-14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the notice provided in the 2012 case was sufficient and complied with due process requirements.
• Whether the NMPRC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting the rate allocation methodology and in denying the appellants' Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration.
• Whether the underlying right-of-way contracts were validly formed.
• Whether the rate setting process denied the appellants equal protection.
• Whether the appellants are estopped from challenging the rate allocation methodology established in the earlier proceeding (paras 3, 5-14).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the NMPRC, rejecting the appellants' contentions (para 15).

Reasons

• CHARLES W. DANIELS, Chief Justice, with concurrence from PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice, EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice, BARBARA J. Vigil, Justice, JUDITH K. NAKAMURA, Justice: The Court found the notice in the 2012 case sufficient for due process requirements and identified no unusual circumstances that would excuse the appellants' untimely appeal of the 2012 proceedings. The Court concluded that the NMPRC did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the appellants' Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration, as the appellants' challenges were primarily against the merits of the 2012 case, which they did not timely appeal. The Court also found that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply because the rate allocation methodology was not an ultimate issue in the compliance filing case. The decision to deny the Motion was not arbitrary and capricious, as it was based on lawful rates and correct calculations for Rate Rider 4, and the appellants did not present new information regarding the reconciliation of Rate Rider 4 (paras 4-14).