Pursuant to the commission's rulemaking authority, public utilities supplying electric or natural gas service to customers shall periodically file an integrated resource plan with the commission. Utility integrated resource plans shall evaluate renewable energy, energy efficiency, load management, distributed generation and conventional supply-side resources on a consistent and comparable basis and take into consideration deployment of advanced grid technologies, risk and uncertainty of fuel supply, price volatility and costs of anticipated environmental regulations in order to identify the most cost-effective portfolio of resources to supply the energy needs of customers. The preparation of resource plans shall incorporate a public advisory process. Nothing in this section shall prohibit public utilities from implementing cost-effective energy efficiency and load management programs and the commission from approving public utility expenditures on energy efficiency programs and load management programs prior to the commission establishing rules and guidelines for integrated resource planning. The commission may exempt public utilities with fewer than five thousand customers and distribution-only public utilities from the requirements of this section. The commission shall take into account a public utility's resource planning requirements in other states and shall authorize utilities that operate in multiple states to implement plans that coordinate the applicable state resource planning requirements. The requirements of this section shall take effect one year following the commission's adoption of rules implementing the provisions of this section.

History: Laws 2005, ch. 341, § 10; 2025, ch. 93, § 4.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2025 amendment, effective July 1, 2025, included advanced grid technologies in utility integrated resource plans; and after "take into consideration" added "deployment of advanced grid technologies".

The public regulation commission did not abuse its discretion in approving a contested stipulation. — Where appellant appealed from a final order issued by the New Mexico public regulation commission (PRC) approving a contested stipulation granting the public service company of New Mexico (PNM) certificates of public convenience and necessity (CCN) to acquire new generation resources and by filing a notice proposing to dismiss the protests to PNM's 2014 integrated resource plan (IRP), the PRC did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the supplemental stipulation fairly and justly resolved the CCN proceedings, because the hearings below were conducted in conformity with the governing regulation, the hearing examiner correctly identified the substantive legal standards necessary to resolve the merits of the contest, afforded appellant, a non-stipulating party, an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the stipulation, and made an independent finding, supported by substantial evidence in the record, that the stipulation resolves the matters in dispute in a way that is fair, just and reasonable and in the public interest, and the PRC's decision to file a notice proposing to dismiss the protests to PNM's 2014 IRP was a lawful exercise of the PRC's discretion, because the issues addressed in the CCN proceedings were the very same issues at the heart of the 2014 IRP protest proceedings. New Energy Econ. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n, 2018-NMSC-024.

Revised integrated resource planning provisions of amended rule do not exceed the scope of the Efficient Use of Energy Act. — In a consolidated appeal, where electric utility companies El Paso electric company, public service company of New Mexico, and southwestern public service company (collectively appellants), sought judicial review of recently amended regulations governing the integrated resource planning (IRP) framework set out in 62-17-10 NMSA 1978 of the Efficient Use of Energy Act (EUEA), and where appellants argued that the procurement-related requirements provided for in the amended rule exceed the scope of the IRP framework laid out in the planning provisions of 62-17-10 NMSA 1978, the public regulation commission did not err in adopting the amended rule, because the intent of the statute is to identify the most cost-effective portfolio of resources to supply the energy needs of customers, and the revised IRP provisions of the amended rule advance the core purposes of the statute's planning provisions and do not exceed what has been statutorily authorized. El Paso Elec. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Regul. Comm'n, 2025-NMSC-009.