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

• Petitioners challenged the re-adoption of building codes by the New Mexico Construction Industries Commission and Division, arguing that the decision lacked justification, substantial evidence, and violated procedural requirements, among other claims.

Procedural History

• Sw. Energy Efficiency Project v. N.M. Constr. Indus. Comm’n, Nos. 31,383, 31,386, 31,384, 31,385, mem. op. ¶ 14 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2013) (non-precedential): The Court set aside the 2011 codes due to insufficient reasons provided by the Commission for their adoption.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners-Appellants: Argued that the Commission failed to justify its decision to re-adopt the 2011 codes, lacked substantial evidence, violated the Uniform Licensing Act's requirements for public hearings, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and lacked jurisdiction to adopt the 2011 codes.
• Respondents-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Commission justified its decision to re-adopt the 2011 building codes.
• Whether there was substantial evidence supporting the adoption of the 2011 codes.
• Whether the Commission’s proceedings violated the Uniform Licensing Act’s requirements for public hearings.
• Whether the Commission’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.
• Whether the Commission had jurisdiction when it adopted the 2011 codes.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Commission’s re-adoption of the 2011 codes.

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge (with RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court found the Commission's statement of reasons for re-adopting the 2011 codes to be legally sufficient, citing sixteen reasons that balanced energy efficiency with building costs. The Court also determined there was substantial evidence supporting the re-adoption, despite the petitioners' selective emphasis on evidence. The Court rejected the argument that the Commission violated the Uniform Licensing Act’s requirements for public hearings, noting no objections were made to the procedures during the hearings. Lastly, the Court concluded that the Commission had jurisdiction to re-adopt the 2011 codes, stating that the request for additional briefing did not equate to a grant of rehearing and that the Commission was acting in its rule-making capacity, not adjudicatory capacity.