1. A. A community solar facility shall:

   1. (1) have a nameplate capacity rating of five megawatts alternating current or less;
   2. (2) be located in the service territory of the qualifying utility and be interconnected to the electric distribution system of that qualifying utility;
   3. (3) have at least ten subscribers;
   4. (4) have the option to be co-located with other energy resources, but shall not be co-located with other community solar facilities;
   5. (5) not allow a single subscriber to be allocated more than forty percent of the generating capacity of the facility; and
   6. (6) make at least forty percent of the total generating capacity of a community solar facility available in subscriptions of twenty-five kilowatts or less.
2. B. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a native community solar project; provided that a native community solar project shall be located in the service territory of a qualifying utility and be interconnected to the electric distribution system of that qualifying utility.

History: Laws 2021, ch. 34, § 3.

ANNOTATIONS

Effective dates. — Laws 2021, ch. 34 contained no effective date provision, but, pursuant to N.M. Const., art. IV, § 23, was effective June 18, 2021, 90 days after adjournment of the legislature.

The public regulation commission's interpretation of statute's prohibition against the co-location of community solar facilities was reasonable and within the commission's policy-making authority. — In a consolidated appeal, where appellants and intervenors challenged a community solar rule that authorizes the public regulation commission to consider, on a case-by-case basis, allowing more than one community solar facility to be located on the same parcel of land, in violation of 62-16B-3(A)(4) NMSA 1978, the public regulation commission did not exceed its policy-making authority in adopting the rule, because the commission's exercise of its policy-making was reasonable in opting for a flexible approach to determining whether community solar facilities are co-located and in opting to consider on a case-by-case basis whether two or more facilities may be located on the same parcel without violating the prohibition against co-location. Sw. Pub. Serv. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Regul. Comm'n, 2025-NMSC-013.