New Energy Economy v. Vanzi, 274 P.3d 53

Four petitions for writs of superintending control challenge administrative rulemakings by EIB and WQCC; consolidated petitions concern Rule 100 (Greenhouse Gas Reduction) and Water Rules.
Petitioners New Energy Economy (NEE), Amigos Bravos groups, and River Parties participated as parties or with technical testimony in below rulemakings and seek appellee/party status on appeal.
Court of Appeals denied intervention/appellee status to NEE, Amigos Bravos groups, and River Parties; MCAC’s request for party status on Helena permit appeal was denied.
This Court granted writs for three petitioners (NEE, Amigos Bravos groups, River Parties) and denied MCAC’s writ; the Helena air-permit dispute proceeds on appeal with MCAC barred from party status.
The opinion clarifies who may be a party on appeal in administrative rule-making and discusses permissible remedies and limitations on extending party status to others.
Helena Chemical Company air-permit matter illustrates adjudicatory party definitions and the role of interested participants versus parties on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who may appeal as a party in administrative-rule appeals	NEE/Amigos/ River Parties were legally significant actors below and should defend gains on appeal.	Rule 12-601(B) contemplates only those adversely affected; no explicit right for others to be appellees.	Parties who participated in rule-making in a legally significant way may be parties on appeal.
MCAC's right to be a party on Helena permit appeal	MCAC had interests and could intervene; denial violates rights to participate.	Nonparties below cannot be added on appeal; no statutory basis for party status.	MCAC has no right to become a party on appeal; discretionary intervention was within the court's authority to deny.
Adequacy of alternatives to party status (amicus/ future rule-making)	Amici participation or future rule-making does not adequately protect petitioners' interests.	Amici status provides sufficient protection and future proceedings allow redress.	Amici curiae and future rule-making are not adequate substitutes for party status on appeal; proper party status is required.

In re Extradition of Martinez, 2001-NMSC-009 (N.M. 2001) (sets factors for superintending control analysis)
Plummer v. Johnson, 61 N.M. 423 (1956) (parties to review governed by general civil-party rules)
Wylie Bros. Contracting Co. v. Albuquerque-Bernalillo Cnty. Air Quality Control Bd., 80 N.M. 633 (Ct. App. 1969) (administrative decisions include regulations; party status considerations)
Old Abe Co. v. N.M. Mining Comm’n, 121 N.M. 83 (Ct. App. 1995) (intervention on appeal and lack of below-party status discussed)
Thriftway Mktg. Corp. v. State, 111 N.M. 763 (Ct. App. 1990) (exceptional-circumstances intervention standards in appeals)
Rivera v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 2011-NMSC-033 (N.M. 2011) (appellate management of dockets and party considerations)