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

• Several petitioners, including New Energy Economy, Inc. (NEE), Amigos Bravos, League of Women Voters of New Mexico, Center of Southwest Culture, and Mesquite Community Action Committee, sought to defend new environmental rules in appellate court after participating significantly in the administrative rule-making proceedings that led to the adoption of these rules. Their participation ranged from submitting expert testimony to proposing the rules themselves. However, their motions to intervene in the appeals were denied by the Court of Appeals, prompting them to seek writs of superintending control from the Supreme Court of New Mexico to overturn those rulings (paras 1-3, 7, 11).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners (NEE, Amigos Bravos Groups, River Parties, and Mesquite Community Action Committee): Argued they had the right to defend the new environmental rules in appellate court due to their significant participation in the administrative rule-making proceedings, including submitting expert testimony and proposing the rules (paras 1-3, 7, 11).
• Respondents (Court of Appeals, Public Service Company of New Mexico, New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, and others): Opposed the petitioners' motions to intervene in the appeals, leading to the denial of their participation as appellees in the appellate proceedings (paras 5, 7, 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether participants in administrative rule-making proceedings who significantly contributed to the development of new rules have the right to defend those rules as appellees in subsequent appellate proceedings (paras 1, 23-24).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico granted the writs of superintending control for three of the petitions (NEE, Amigos Bravos Groups, and River Parties), allowing them to intervene as parties in the appellate proceedings. The Court denied the petition filed by Mesquite Community Action Committee (para 58).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court found that the denial of the petitioners' motions to intervene in the appeals was arbitrary and resulted in a gross injustice, threatening irreparable injury to the petitioners without any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy other than by issuance of the writs. The Court held that participants who significantly contributed to the administrative rule-making process have the right to participate as parties to an appeal if their interests are at risk. This conclusion was based on the interpretation of appellate procedure rules, the significant roles and contributions of the petitioners in the rule-making process, and the absence of any rule or case law supporting the exclusion of such parties from the appeal. The Court distinguished the situation of the Mesquite Community Action Committee, which was not a party to the administrative proceeding and did not attempt to intervene at that level, thus not qualifying for the same right to participate in the appeal (paras 23-57).