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 amended Purchased Power Agreements (PPAs) by El Paso Electric Company for the purchase of solar electric capacity from several facilities, including Buena Vista-1 and Buena Vista-2 (para 1).
Procedural History
- New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, Case No. 19-00099-UT: Approved El Paso Electric Company's amended 2019 Renewable Energy Act Plan and related PPAs.
- New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, Case No. 19-00348-UT: Approved El Paso Electric Company's long-term purchased power agreements with various energy centers.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (City of Las Cruces): Argued that the Commission's final order was unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and unlawful due to reliance on the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation. Also claimed a denial of due process as anticipatory repudiation was raised for the first time in the final order and that the Commission omitted consideration of relevant factors (para 8).
- 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 Commission's final order was unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, or unlawful.
- Whether the Commission denied the City due process by raising anticipatory repudiation for the first time in the final order.
- Whether the Commission omitted consideration of relevant factors in approving the amended PPAs.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Commission's final order (para 18).
Reasons
Per Curiam:
The Court found that the Commission acted within its statutory and regulatory authority to approve the amended PPAs. The Commission did not rely on the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation as a basis for approval but rather addressed it concerning cost recovery. The City was provided reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process requirements. The additional factors identified by the City were either irrelevant or already considered by the Commission. The Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious (paras 10-17).