AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) and other parties appealed a decision by the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) that rejected PNM's renewable energy procurement plan for 2011. The plan included the purchase of approximately $5 million in renewable energy certificates (RECs) from third parties, which were not directly bundled with actual renewable energy production and included some RECs nearing expiration. PRC directed PNM to submit a different plan including RECs of more recent vintage, directly bundled with renewable energy production, which PNM eventually complied with.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (PNM and other parties): Argued that the Renewable Energy Act permitted unbundled RECs and placed no age restriction on their purchase as long as they had not yet expired.
• Appellee (PRC): Directed PNM to submit a different plan that would include RECs of more recent vintage, directly bundled with renewable energy production.

Legal Issues

• Whether PRC violated the Renewable Energy Act by rejecting PNM's proposed Plan for the reasons given.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed as moot.

Reasons

• Justice Richard C. Bosson, with concurrence from Chief Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justices Patricio M. Serna, Edward L. Chávez, and Charles W. Daniels, reasoned that the appeal was moot because PNM complied with PRC's directive, making its original Plan irrelevant. Despite the mootness, PNM urged the Court to decide the appeal, arguing that the controversy over PRC's rejection implicated a substantial public interest and was capable of repetition yet evading review. However, the Court was not persuaded that the issue was capable of repetition and evading review, noting that PRC had not made a broad policy decision to reject unbundled RECs or RECs of older vintage in all or most cases. The Court concluded that an appellate decision in this case would be purely advisory and dismissed the appeal, preferring to wait for an appeal that presents an actual controversy.