Southwestern Pub. Serv. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n (Unpublished Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO No. S-1-SC-37248 Filing Date: May 18, 2020 SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION, Appellee, and VOTE SOLAR, Cross-Appellant, and COALITION FOR CLEAN AFFORDABLE ENERGY, Intervenor-Appellee. In the Matter of Southwestern Public Service Company's Application for Revision of Its Retail Rates Pursuant to Advice Notice No. 272, New Mexico Public Regulation Commission Case No. 17-00255-UT APPEAL FROM THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION Hinkle Shanor, LLP Jeffrey Louis Fornaciari Dana Simmons Hardy Santa Fe, NM Xcel Energy Services, Inc. Stephen Fogel Austin, TX Winstead PC Ron H. Moss Austin, TX for Appellant Judith Ellen Amer, Associate General Counsel Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Jason Marks Law, LLC Jason A. Marks Albuquerque, NM Earthjustice Sara Gersen Los Angeles, CA Charles Carter Hall Washington, DC for Cross-Appellant Charles F. Noble Santa Fe, NM for Intervener-Appellee New Mexico Gas Company, Inc. Thomas M. Domme, General Counsel Albuquerque, NM Keleher & McLeod, P.A. Thomas C. Bird Clyde F. Worthen Brian J. Haverly Zachary Cormier Albuquerque, NM for Interested Party DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL BACON, Justice. {1} THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 62-11-1 (1993). Following dismissal of the original appeal, this Court retained jurisdiction over cross-appellant’s appeal. Having reviewed the briefs submitted to this Court, and being otherwise fully informed on the issues and applicable law, we conclude that there is no reasonable likelihood, under the facts before us, that a decision or formal opinion of the Court will materially advance the law of the State. Accordingly, we dispose of this case by nonprecedential order. See Rule 12-405(B) NMRA. {2} Although any party to a proceeding before the commission may appeal to this Court for a review of the commission’s final orders, see Section 62-11-1, the issues appealed must be ripe for review. See New Mexico Indus. Energy Consumers v. New Mexico Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 1991-NMSC-018, ¶ 7, 111 N.M. 622, 808 P.2d 592. The final order in this case did not resolve the issue in dispute and explicitly reserved that issue for future interpretation. In light of this Court’s ripeness determination, any decision rendered would be advisory in nature. See Ramirez v. CYFD, 2016-NMSC016, ¶ 11, 372 P.3d 497 (stating that this Court does not render advisory opinions). {3} IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that cross-appellant’s appeal is dismissed. {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. JUDITH K. NAKAMURA, Chief Justice BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice C. SHANNON BACON, Justice DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
