STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. Representative BRIAN EGOLF, Senator JACOB CANDELARIA, Senator MIMI STEWART, Representative NATHAN SMALL, Governor MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, and Navajo Nation President JONATHAN NEZ, Petitioners, v. NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION, Commissioner VALERIE ESPINOZA, Commissioner JEFFERSON L. BYRD, Commissioner CYNTHIA B. HALL, Commissioner THERESA BECENTI-AGUILAR, and Commissioner STEPHEN FISCHMANN, Respondents, and PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO, Intervenor-Real Party in Interest.
No. S-1-SC-38041
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
July 23, 2020
2020-NMSC-018
Original Proceeding. Released for Publication December 15, 2020.
Keleher & McLeod, P.A.
Thomas C. Bird
Albuquerque, NM
for Petitioners Representative Brian Egolf, Senator Jacob Candelaria, Senator Mimi Stewart, Representative Nathan Small
New Mexico Office of the Governor
Matthew L. Garcia, Chief General Counsel
Santa Fe, NM
for Petitioner Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham
Navajo Nation Department of Justice
Paul W. Spruhan
Window Rock, AZ
for Petitioner Navajo Nation President Johnathan Nez
Michael C. Smith, Acting General Counsel
Judith Ellen Amer, Associate General Counsel
Santa Fe, NM
for Respondents
PNM Resources, Inc.
Patrick V.
Stacey J. Goodwin, Associate
Albuquerque, NM
Miller Stratvert P.A.
Richard L. Alvidrez
Albuquerque, NM
for Intervenor-Real Party in Interest Public Service Company of New Mexico
OPINION
BACON, Justice.
{1} In this original proceeding, members of both houses of the Legislature, along with the Governor and President of the Navajo Nation (collectively Petitioners), filed an emergency petition on behalf of the State of New Mexico seeking a writ of mandamus against the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (Commission). Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to direct the Commission and its individual commissioners to apply the Energy Transition Act (ETA),
{2} The Commission exceeded its constitutional and statutory authority by initiating proceedings for abandonment of San Juan Units One and Four, and as a result, lawful abandonment proceedings were not initiated until after the ETA became operative. As the ETA was effective at the time abandonment proceedings began, the Commission had a nondiscretionary duty to apply the ETA. The Commission‘s equivocation to administer applicable law to abandonment proceedings necessarily invoked this Court‘s mandamus jurisdiction in order to preserve New Mexico‘s constitutionally required separation of powers. See
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Commission‘s Initiation of Abandonment Proceedings
{3} The genesis of this case is rooted in the proceedings for abandonment of San Juan Units Two and Three, which PNM initiated in 2013. San Juan is a four-unit, coal-fired power plant near Farmington, New Mexico, that is operated and partially owned by PNM. Previous abandonment proceedings targeted only San Juan Units Two and Three and were docketed by the Commission as Case No. 13-00390-UT (2013 Docket).1
{4} Abandonment of Units Two and Three was authorized by the Commission through a modified stipulation (Modified Stipulation). The Modified Stipulation served as the final order in the 2013 Docket but also contained provisions for the future use of the remaining units at San Juan—Units One and Four. See New Energy Econ., 2018-NMSC-024, ¶¶ 6, 9-10. Of significance to the instant case, Paragraph 19 of the Modified Stipulation required PNM to seek Commission review of any agreements that would commit PNM to the use of Units One and Four past 2020. Paragraph 19 states, in relevant part:
After July 1, 2018, but no later than December 31, 2018, PNM shall make a filing with the commission, and serve all parties to this case, to determine the extent to which [San Juan] should continue serving PNM‘s retail customers’ needs after June 30, 2022. The filing shall be made before PNM has made a binding commitment to a post-2022 coal supply agreement, but after PNM has received firm pricing and other terms for the supply of coal at [San Juan], unless PNM proposes not to pursue a coal supply post-2022. . . .
{5} In response to Paragraph 19, PNM filed a “verified compliance filing” on December 31, 2018, in the 2013 Docket. The compliance filing informed the Commission that PNM did not intend to operate San Juan past 2022 and that a majority of San Juan‘s owners sought to close San Juan by 2022. Because PNM did not intend to operate San Juan past 2022, PNM did not consider it necessary to request the Commission‘s review or approval of PNM‘s planned course of action, as had been contemplated by Paragraph 19. For these reasons, PNM asked that the compliance filing be accepted in lieu of procedures outlined in Paragraph 19. PNM further stated it would formally file for abandonment of San Juan Units One and Four in the second quarter of 2019.
{6} On January 10, 2019, the Commission responded to PNM‘s compliance filing by opening a new case, Case No. 19-00018-UT (January 2019 Docket), and entering an order simultaneously in that newly created docket and the 2013 Docket. In that order, the Commission requested all parties to the 2013 Docket to brief whether the Commission should take one of two courses of action. The Commission‘s first proposed course of action was to accept PNM‘s compliance filing and not take further action until PNM filed its abandonment application in the second quarter of 2019. The second proposed course of action called for the Commission to instead immediately initiate abandonment proceedings for San Juan Units One and Four under the newly created January 2019 Docket, because PNM had “irrevocably committed itself to abandonment of [San Juan].” Based on the parties’ responses, the Commission proceeded with the second proposal and entered an order on January 30, 2019 (Abandonment Order) initiating an abandonment proceeding pursuant to authority ostensibly derived from
B. PNM‘s Petition for Writ of Mandamus
{7} After the Commission denied PNM‘s February 7, 2019, motion to reconsider the Abandonment Order, PNM petitioned this Court for an emergency stay in abandonment proceedings and for a writ of mandamus ordering the Commission to vacate the Abandonment Order. We did not immediately rule on PNM‘s petition for mandamus but granted the request for an emergency stay in proceedings.
{8} While matters were stayed under this Court‘s order, the Governor signed the bill creating the ETA, which would go into effect on June 14, 2019. 2019 N.M. Laws, ch. 65, § 1; see
{9} On July 1, 2019, PNM filed its consolidated application for abandonment of San Juan. The Commission, however, adjudged that a valid abandonment proceeding had already begun, prior to the enactment of the ETA, when the Abandonment Order compelled PNM to file an abandonment application in the January 2019 Docket. The Commission therefore found that PNM‘s July 1, 2019, application was responsive to the January 30, 2019, Abandonment Order. This led to the Commission‘s conclusion that abandonment and financing proceedings should proceed under the January 2019 Docket, which—according to the Commission—had been lawfully opened pursuant to the Commission‘s authority vested in
{10} After the Commission had bifurcated the proceedings, Western Resource Advocates (WRA)—a party to San Juan abandonment proceedings—petitioned the Commission to clarify whether it intended to apply
{11} Lacking clarification from the Commission, PNM along with WRA and several other interested parties moved this Court to clarify why it had lifted its March 1, 2019, stay of the Abandonment Order. Specifically, clarification was sought as to whether this Court had lifted the stay on June 26, 2019, and denied PNM‘s previous petition for writ of mandamus because the Court considered the case moot in light of the passage and enactment of the ETA. Alternatively, the parties sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Commission to apply the ETA to abandonment proceedings. On October 3, 2019, we denied both the motion for clarification and the alternative petition for writ of mandamus.
C. The Instant Petition for Writ of Mandamus
{12} By October 2019 the Commission had not yet informed the parties whether it would apply the ETA to abandonment proceedings, despite abandonment proceedings purportedly beginning in January 2019. Indeed, Petitioners’ briefing expressed that the Commission did not intend to make such a decision until April 2020. Alleging that the Commission‘s equivocation on the ETA‘s applicability encroached upon the Legislature‘s authority and that the Commission‘s equivocation was causing irreparable economic harm, Petitioners petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the Commission to apply the ETA to San Juan abandonment proceedings.
{13} Given the exigencies of the matter, we expedited briefing and held oral argument on January 29, 2020. After oral argument, we orally ruled that (1) this Court had proper mandamus jurisdiction in this matter, (2) Petitioners’ petition for writ of mandamus was granted, and (3) the Commission must apply the ETA to abandonment proceedings and vacate the Abandonment Order. We entered a writ of mandamus and an order reflecting our oral rulings. Writ of Mandamus at 2, Egolf, S-1-SC-38041 (Jan. 29, 2020); Order at 2, Egolf, S-1-SC-38041 (Jan. 29, 2020). This opinion follows.
II. JURISDICTION
{14} This Court has original mandamus jurisdiction over this matter.
{15} This Court has emphasized that mandamus is particularly appropriate “where a petitioner [seeks] to restrain one branch of government from unduly encroaching or interfering with the authority of another branch in violation of
the petitioner presents a purely legal issue concerning the non-discretionary duty of a government official that (1) implicates fundamental constitutional questions of great
public importance, (2) can be answered on the basis of virtually undisputed facts, and (3) calls for an expeditious resolution that cannot be obtained through other channels such as direct appeal.
{16} Applying Sandel‘s standards to the case at hand, we determine that this matter is properly before us. The threshold point to address is whether Petitioners have “present[ed] a purely legal issue concerning the non-discretionary duty of a government official.” Id. As we discuss herein, the Commission did not have the authority to initiate proceedings for abandonment of San Juan, and as a matter of law, proceedings began after the ETA became effective. Clear constitutional and statutory delineations instruct that the Commission has a nondiscretionary duty to administer applicable law duly enacted by our Legislature.
{17} Having determined the instant case is a legally driven, nondiscretionary matter, we apply Sandel‘s three criteria. First, this matter implicates matters of great constitutional importance because the Commission‘s actions ultimately invade legislative authority, thus violating provisions of the
{18} Second, the parties do not dispute the factual record in this matter, which not only meets the second criterion of Sandel, but also buttresses our conclusion that the matter before us is a purely legal one. Third, briefing in this matter has demonstrated irreversible harm likely to occur to the economies of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation caused by the Commission‘s equivocation on application of the ETA to abandonment proceedings for San Juan Units One and Four. Briefing has also illuminated the need for immediate clarification of applicable law in order to efficiently proceed with abandonment of San Juan. We are persuaded by the briefing that these factors establish the need for expeditious resolution and satisfy the third prong of Sandel.
{19} Guided by Sandel, we conclude mandamus is the appropriate remedy in this matter to restrain the Commission from encroaching upon the authority of the Legislature. We exercise our mandamus jurisdiction and proceed to our reasons for compelling the Commission to apply the ETA to San Juan abandonment proceedings.
III. THE COMMISSION HAS A NONDISCRETIONARY DUTY TO APPLY THE ETA
{20} The pivotal question is whether abandonment of San Juan Units One and Four was a pending case prior to the enactment of the ETA. We conclude that it was not. The Commission argues that application of the ETA to San Juan abandonment proceedings is precluded by
{21} The Commission specifically contends that the Commission‘s initiation of abandonment proceedings in January 2019 marked the beginning of San Juan abandonment proceedings, thus constituting a “pending case” within the meaning of
{22} The linchpin of the Commission‘s argument—that the Commission‘s initiation of abandonment proceedings marked the beginning of a valid “pending case” within the meaning of
A. The Commission Did Not Have the Authority to Compel PNM to File an Application for Abandonment
{23} The Commission asserts two bases for initiating the January 2019 Docket. First, the Commission states that
{24}
{25} This Court has previously confronted the Commission‘s authority under
{26} United Water informs that, under
{27} The Commission also asserts that Paragraph 19 necessitated the Commission‘s initiation of abandonment proceedings because PNM had taken concrete steps to abandon San Juan. Indeed, PNM stated in its December 31, 2018, compliance filing that it would not be extending operation of San Juan past 2022 and that it planned to file an abandonment application in the second quarter of 2019. We appreciate the Commission‘s commitment to guarding public interest and ensuring proper safeguards in the course of abandonment of a public utility. While those interests are sound, we nevertheless reiterate that the Legislature has not conferred upon the Commission the authority to initiate an abandonment proceeding as an avenue to ensure compliance with Commission directives.
{28} That is not to say the Commission is devoid of means to prevent a public utility from undermining its authority.
Whenever the commission shall be of the opinion that any person or utility is failing . . . to do anything required of it by this act or by any order of the commission, or is doing anything or about to do anything contrary to or in violation of this act or of any order of the commission, it may direct the attorney general of New Mexico to commence an action or proceeding in the district court . . . for the purpose of having such violations or threatened violations stopped and prevented either by mandamus or injunction.
{29}
{30} We hold the Commission does not have the authority to initiate an abandonment
B. Because the ETA Applies as a Matter of Law, the Commission‘s Equivocation to Apply the ETA Violates Article III, Section 1 of the New Mexico Constitution
{31} Having established that the Commission lacks the authority to initiate an abandonment proceeding, we can discern that abandonment proceedings for San Juan Units One and Four effectively began when PNM filed its consolidated application for abandonment on July 1, 2019. See
{32} A violation of the separation of powers doctrine occurs when an administrative body “conflict[s] with or infringe[s] upon what is the essence of legislative authority—the making of law.” State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson, 1995-NMSC-048, ¶ 33, 120 N.M. 562, 904 P.2d 11. We have previously stated that “conflict or infringement occurs when an administrative agency goes beyond the existing New Mexico statutes or case law it is charged with administering and claims the authority to modify this existing law or to create new law on its own.” Sandel, 1999-NMSC-019, ¶ 12. The Commission‘s authority goes no further than what has been statutorily authorized. See El Paso Elec., 2010-NMSC-048, ¶ 6 (“The Commission, though a constitutionally created body,
{33} The Commission has a constitutional duty to regulate public utilities “in such manner as the legislature shall provide.”
IV. CONCLUSION
{34} For the foregoing reasons, we granted Petitioners’ petition for writ of mandamus.
{35} IT IS SO ORDERED.
C. SHANNON BACON, Justice
WE CONCUR:
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Justice
BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice
DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice
RAYMOND Z. ORTIZ, Judge, Retired
Sitting by designation