Attorney General v. PUBLIC REGULATION COM'N
258 P.3d 453
| N.M. | 2011Background
- Consolidated appeals challenge the PRC's Final Order implementing Alternative A under the Efficient Use of Energy Act (EUEA).
- EUEA requires removing disincentives to public utilities' energy efficiency efforts and balancing public, consumer, and investor interests.
- The 2008 amendments to EUEA allowed profit and incentives for energy efficiency, prompting PRC to adopt Alternative A with an Interim Adder and a Reduced Adder after its expiration.
- The PRC held hearings; utilities presented projected revenue losses versus gains from the Interim Adder; the Final Order amended 17.7.2 NMAC accordingly.
- AG and NMIEC appealed, contending the Final Order was not supported by law or evidence; case was consolidated and reviewed, leading to annulment and vacatur of the Final Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the Alternative A adders rates under the PUA/EUEA? | NMIEC/AG contend adders are rates and require cost-based support. | PRC argues EUEA permits non-cost-based adders, with balancing by the agency. | Adders are rates; need cost-based support and record evidence. |
| Does EUEA's balancing requirement align with PUA ratemaking principles? | Balancing should be the same as under the PUA to determine just and reasonable rates. | EUEA allows a distinct balancing framework managed by PRC without strictly cost-based metrics. | Balancing under EUEA is harmonized with PUA; both require a just and reasonable result via balancing. |
| Did the PRC adequately base the Final Order on evidence and the record? | Appropriate evidence on revenue requirements and costs is necessary to support adders. | The PRC exercised discretion in adopting adders based on workshop and hearing inputs. | The PRC's Final Order lacked lawful evidentiary basis; arbitrary and unlawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re PNM Gas Servs., 129 P.3d 383 (2000-NMSC-012) (foundation of ratemaking elements and revenue requirements)
- Hobbs Gas Co. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 94 N.M. 731 (1980) (zone of reasonableness in rate setting)
- NMIEC v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n, 168 P.3d 105 (2007-NMSC-053) (statutory interpretation and harmonization of related acts)
- State ex rel. Quintana v. Schnedar, 855 P.2d 562 (1993) (read related statutes in pari materia; harmonization)
- Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M. v. N.M. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 992 P.2d 860 (1999-NMSC-040) (balancing public and investor interests in ratemaking)
- Behles v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n (In re Application of Timberon Water Co.), 836 P.2d 73 (1992) (zone of reasonableness; utility rates)
- ABCWUA v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n, 229 P.3d 494 (2010-NMSC-013) (statutory interpretation; agency expertise)