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

• The case revolves around the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission's (Commission or PRC) approval of the Public Service Company of New Mexico’s (PNM) renewable energy procurement plan for the year 2018. New Energy Economy (NEE) challenged the Commission's approval, arguing that PNM's request for proposal (RFP) process for procuring solar energy generating facilities was unfairly designed to favor a predetermined type of renewable energy bid, thereby limiting the universe of potential bidders (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (NEE): Argued that PNM's RFP process was unfair as it was designed to limit the universe of potential bidders and select a predetermined, preferred type of renewable energy bid. Specifically, NEE contended that the RFP favored turnkey proposals over purchased power agreement (PPA) proposals by requiring only PPA bidders to determine transmission and interconnection costs, which could disadvantage them (paras 2-3, 5, 7, 10-11).
• Appellee (Commission): Supported the approval of PNM's 2018 Plan, finding the RFP process reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case. The Commission determined that the challenged provisions of the RFP were consistent with industry practice and gave all bidders a fair opportunity to participate (paras 3, 9-12).
• Intervener-Appellee/Cross-Appellant (New Energy Economy): Same as Appellant.
• Interveners-Appellees (Public Service Company of New Mexico, and Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Commission’s approval of PNM’s solar energy procurement was unreasonable or unlawful due to an allegedly unfair RFP process designed by PNM (para 3).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico affirmed the Commission’s final order approving PNM’s 2018 Plan (para 3).

Reasons

• Justice Bacon, writing for the Court, concluded that NEE did not meet its burden of proving that the Commission’s approval of the solar energy procurement was unreasonable or unlawful. The Court found substantial evidence in the record supporting the Commission’s determination that the challenged provisions of the RFP were reasonable under the facts and circumstances of this case. Specifically, the Court noted that the RFP was similar to prior RFPs issued by PNM and other utilities, that developers commonly have renewable energy projects ready to respond to RFPs, and that no PPA bidder requested an extension beyond the thirty-one-day deadline. The Court also highlighted that PNM’s RFP allowed for both turnkey and PPA proposals, and the selection of Affordable Solar’s turnkey bid was based on it having the lowest levelized cost, making it the most cost-effective bid. The Court concluded that the evidence demonstrated that the RFP gave all bidders a fair opportunity to participate and compete for PNM’s selection, thus affirming the Commission’s final order (paras 9-13).