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

• The City of Las Cruces appealed a final order from the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, which approved the 2022 annual renewable energy procurement plan of the El Paso Electric Company under the Renewable Energy Act. The appeal raised issues regarding the application of cost limitations, the inclusion of certain factors in the cost analysis, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the Commission's factual findings, and alleged due process violations related to the time provided for filing exceptions to the Hearing Examiner’s recommended decision (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (City of Las Cruces): Argued that the PRC erred in applying Renewable Energy Act cost limitations to the proposed large solar energy procurement project, failed to include certain factors in the cost analysis, lacked substantial evidence for its factual findings, and violated due process by providing insufficient time to file exceptions to the Hearing Examiner’s recommended decision (para 2).
• Appellee (New Mexico Public Regulation Commission): [Not applicable or not found]
• Intervenor-Appellee (El Paso Electric Company): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the PRC erred in applying Renewable Energy Act cost limitations to El Paso Electric Company’s proposed large solar energy procurement project.
• Whether the PRC failed to include certain factors in the cost analysis of the project.
• Whether there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the PRC's factual findings due to El Paso Electric Company not satisfying the Renewable Energy Act plan requirements.
• Whether the Commission violated the City of Las Cruces’ due process rights by providing insufficient time to file exceptions to the Hearing Examiner’s recommended decision (para 2).

Disposition

• The final order of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission is affirmed (para 13).

Reasons

• Justices Michael E. Vigil, David K. Thomson, C. Shannon Bacon, Julie J. Vargas, and Briana H. Zamora concurred in the decision. The Court held that to overturn an order of the Commission, the appellant must demonstrate that the order is unreasonable or unlawful. The Court requires a showing that the order is arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, outside the scope of the agency’s authority, or otherwise inconsistent with law. The party challenging the Commission’s order bears the burden of making this showing. The decision is supported by substantial evidence when it is credible in light of the whole record and sufficient for a reasonable mind to accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached by the agency. In a whole record review, the Court does not reweigh the evidence and gives deference to the factfinder. The Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission’s decision, drawing every inference in support of that decision. Decisions requiring expertise in highly technical areas, such as utility rate determinations, are accorded considerable deference. Under the Court’s deferential whole record standard of review, substantial evidence supports the PRC’s final order, and the City of Las Cruces failed to meet its burden to show that the order is unreasonable or unlawful. The City of Las Cruces conceded that there is evidence in the record to support that El Paso Electric Company did meet certain Renewable Energy Act plan requirements (paras 3-12).