Advance Opinions
http://www.nmcompcomm.us/
From the New Mexico Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
OPINION
From the New Mexico Supreme Court
VIGIL, Chief Justice.
Opinion Number: 2022-NMSC-011 No: S-1-SC-37320 (filed February 9, 2022) RESOLUTE WIND 1 LLC, Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION, Appellee, and LEA COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., and WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Intervenors-Appellees. In the Matter of the Formal Complaint of Resolute Wind 1 Against Lea County Electric Cooperative, Inc. Case No. 18-00211-UT APPEAL FROM THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION Released for Publication March 29, 2022. Jason Marks Law, LLC Jason A. Marks Albuquerque, NM
Charles F. Noble Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
for Amicus Curiae Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy
Judith Ellen Amer Associate General Counsel Santa Fe, NM
Earthjustice Sara Gersen Los Angeles, CA
for Appellee
Robin L. Cooley Denver, CO
Newell Law Firm, LLC Michael T. Newell Lovington, NM for Intervenor-Appellee Lea County Electric Cooperative, Inc. The Law Office of Jamison Barkley, LLC Jamison Barkley Santa Fe, NM for Intervenor-Appellee Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc.
David C. Bender Madison, WI for Amici Curiae Vote Solar, Sierra Club, Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy Virtue & Najjar, PC Daniel A. Najjar Carla Rossana Najjar Santa Fe, NM for Amicus Curiae New Mexico Rural Electric Cooperative Association
{1} This appeal turns on a familiar and straightforward legal principle: contested proceedings—whether judicial or, as in this case, administrative—are not susceptible to summary disposition in the face of disputed issues of material fact. The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (the Commission) ignored this blackletter principle when it summarily dismissed the complaint brought by Resolute Wind 1 LLC (Resolute Wind). The Commission’s summary dismissal violated the procedural due process rights of Resolute Wind and was at a minimum arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. {2} The Commission also erred in relying on a federal agency’s determination in an earlier, unrelated matter to dismiss the complaint. {3} The Commission’s procedural and substantive missteps, whether considered separately or together, require us to annul and vacate the final order appealed from and remand the matter to the Commission for further proceedings so as to afford all parties an opportunity to present evidence in support of their respective positions. In view of this result, and as Resolute Wind readily acknowledges, it is not necessary to address the merits of the federal compliance issue Resolute Wind also raises on appeal. Nor, by extension, is it necessary to consider any jurisdictional implications that the compliance issue might create. I. BACKGROUND {4} The outcome of the underlying administrative proceeding ultimately may turn on the proper interpretation and application of various federal and New Mexico statutes and regulations, all highly technical in nature. Because our determination of the distinct and narrow issues outlined above is sufficient to dispose of the present appeal, a full description of the statutory and regulatory frameworks is unnecessary. Instead, we offer a glimpse of the basic aspects of those provisions that govern the dispositive issues and briefly summarize the factual and procedural backdrop of the case to give context to the Commission’s rulings. A. Relevant Statutory and Regulatory Frameworks {5} This case arises under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), Pub. L. No. 95-617, 92 Stat. 3117 (codified as amende d at 16 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2645).
Bar Bulletin - July 27, 2022 - Volume 61, No. 14 23
