476 P.3d 896
N.M.2020Background
- San Juan Generating Station is a four‑unit coal plant partially owned/operated by PNM; prior Commission proceedings in 2013 authorized abandonment of Units 2 and 3 and included Paragraph 19 requiring PNM to seek Commission review if it committed to using Units 1 or 4 past 2020.
- PNM filed a December 31, 2018 compliance notice saying it would not operate San Juan past 2022 and would file an abandonment application in Q2 2019.
- The Public Regulation Commission opened a new January 2019 docket and entered an Abandonment Order compelling PNM to file for abandonment by March 1, 2019; PNM sought emergency relief from this Court and obtained a temporary stay.
- While the stay was in effect the Legislature enacted the Energy Transition Act (ETA), effective June 14, 2019; the Court lifted the stay on June 26, 2019, and PNM filed its consolidated abandonment application on July 1, 2019.
- The Commission treated its January 2019 docket as having lawfully begun abandonment proceedings before the ETA and bifurcated proceedings, but declined to state whether it would apply the ETA; petitioners (legislators, the Governor, and the Navajo Nation) sought mandamus to require the Commission to apply the ETA.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court granted mandamus (Jan. 29, 2020), vacated the Abandonment Order, held the Commission lacked authority to initiate abandonment proceedings, and ruled the ETA applied to the San Juan abandonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to initiate/compel abandonment filing | Commission lacks power to force a utility to file; Section 62‑9‑5 requires a utility‑initiated application | Commission may initiate proceedings and compel filing under §62‑9‑5 and to enforce Paragraph 19 | Commission lacks authority to compel a utility to file; §62‑9‑5 governs voluntary utility requests only; Abandonment Order vacated |
| Applicability of ETA (Article IV §34 challenge) | ETA is operative before PNM’s July 1, 2019 filing, so it controls the abandonment proceedings | Proceedings began with the Commission’s Jan. 2019 docket, so they were pending before the ETA and ETA cannot be applied | Proceedings did not lawfully begin until PNM’s filing; ETA (effective June 14, 2019) applies to the abandonment case |
| Appropriate remedy / mandamus jurisdiction | Mandamus is proper to enforce a nondiscretionary duty and prevent separation‑of‑powers encroachment | Commission decisions are discretionary and not subject to mandamus | Mandamus proper: this is a purely legal, nondiscretionary matter implicating separation of powers; Court ordered Commission to apply ETA |
| Separation of powers / Commission equivocation | Commission’s refusal to apply ETA would unlawfully modify/ignore statute and invade Legislature’s role | Commission asserted discretion to decide statutory applicability in adjudication | Equivocation violated Article III §1; Commission has nondiscretionary duty to apply the ETA as the enacted statutory scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- United Water N.M., Inc. v. N.M. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 910 P.2d 906 (1996) (Section 62‑9‑5 limits Commission role to granting or denying a utility’s abandonment request)
- State ex rel. Sandel v. N.M. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 980 P.2d 55 (1999) (mandamus appropriate to prevent one branch from encroaching on another when the duty is nondiscretionary)
- State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson, 904 P.2d 11 (1995) (administrative action that modifies or creates law beyond statutory authorization infringes legislative power)
- El Paso Elec. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 246 P.3d 443 (2010) (Commission may only exercise statutorily authorized jurisdiction; unlawful jurisdiction requires vacatur)
- New Energy Economy, Inc. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 416 P.3d 277 (2018) (context and prior litigation concerning San Juan abandonment and the 2013 Modified Stipulation)
- In re Held Orders of U S West Commc’ns, Inc., 981 P.2d 789 (1999) (a lawfully commenced administrative proceeding is a "pending case" under Article IV §34)
- Hillelson v. Republic Ins. Co., 627 P.2d 878 (1981) (governing law in effect when a case is initiated controls the case)