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 case concerns a dispute over utility rates for PNM Gas Services (PNMGS), a division of the Public Service Company of New Mexico. The New Mexico Attorney General, acting on behalf of state citizens, negotiated a stipulation with PNMGS and other parties to establish a new rate plan, including a $9.00 customer access fee and a distribution rate of $0.1044 per therm. However, the Public Regulatory Commission (PRC) rejected the stipulation and implemented a two-tiered rate plan, allowing customers to choose between two rate structures. The Attorney General challenged the PRC's decision, arguing it lacked evidentiary support and violated due process (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- Public Regulatory Commission: The PRC rejected the stipulation agreed upon by the parties and implemented a two-tiered rate plan for PNMGS customers (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Attorney General): Argued that the PRC's modifications to the stipulation were void due to lack of evidentiary support and violated due process by consulting with PNMGS and staff witnesses after the hearing without notice or opportunity to respond (para 2).
- Appellee (Public Regulatory Commission): Contended that its rate design was supported by substantial evidence, providing stability and predictability for customers, and addressed the needs of both high- and low-volume users (para 2).
- Intervener (New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Did the PRC's decision to modify the stipulation lack substantial evidence and violate due process?
- Does the PRC have the authority to modify an unopposed stipulation without rejecting it in its entirety?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico vacated the PRC's order and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 15).
Reasons
Per Maes J. (Minzner CJ., Franchini, Baca, and Serna JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the PRC's decision to modify the stipulation was not supported by substantial evidence. The PRC relied on its own expertise rather than credible evidence in the record, which is impermissible. Testimony and data presented by PNMGS and other parties supported the original stipulation, not the PRC's modifications. The PRC's reliance on speculative assertions and selective use of evidence failed to meet the standard of substantial evidence (paras 5-14). Additionally, the Court emphasized that administrative expertise cannot substitute for evidence in the record (para 13). The Court did not address the Attorney General's due process arguments, as the lack of substantial evidence was sufficient to vacate the PRC's order (para 2).
Special Concurrence by Serna J. (Baca J. concurring):
Justice Serna agreed with the majority that the PRC's decision lacked substantial evidence but raised a broader issue regarding the PRC's authority to modify an unopposed stipulation. He argued that the PRC must either accept or reject such stipulations in their entirety and cannot unilaterally alter them over the objection of a party. Resolving this issue would provide clarity and prevent recurrence on remand (para 17).