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 involves an appeal by the City of Las Cruces and El Paso Electric Company against the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (NMPRC) regarding the proxy pricing for PVNGS Unit 3. The City argued that the proxy pricing approved in a previous case expired with the implementation of new rates in the 2015 EPE Rate Case, a position not supported by the Commission as it had never disapproved nor changed the previously approved proxy price.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• City of Las Cruces: Argued that the proxy pricing for PVNGS Unit 3 approved in a previous case expired with the new rates approved in the 2015 EPE Rate Case (para 2).
• El Paso Electric Company: Supported the Commission's position that the proxy price had not expired and argued for the dismissal of the City's appeal on the grounds that the challenged language was dicta and not appealable (para 4).
• New Mexico Public Regulation Commission: Agreed that the Commission did not adopt a "current proxy price" in the case at hand and considered the language challenged by the City as non-binding dicta, suggesting it need not be addressed in the appeal (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the proxy pricing for PVNGS Unit 3 approved in a previous case expired with the implementation of new rates in the 2015 EPE Rate Case.
• Whether the challenged language from the hearing examiner's recommended decision constitutes non-binding dicta and thus is not appealable.

Disposition

• The City’s appeal in Case No. S-1-SC-38911 is dismissed as moot (para 7).

Reasons

• Per C. Shannon Bacon, Chief Justice, Michael E. Vigil, Justice, David K. Thomson, Justice, Julie J. Vargas, Justice, Briana H. Zamora, Justice: The unanimous agreement among the parties that the challenged language is non-binding dicta led to the conclusion that there was no actual controversy capable of relief. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as moot, indicating that the court could not grant any actual relief based on the arguments presented (paras 5-7).