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 U.S. West Communications, Inc., which challenged three orders issued by the New Mexico State Corporation Commission (SCC) in 1998. These orders pertained to held-order waiver petitions, costing methodologies, and rules related to the rural high-cost and low-income components of the New Mexico Universal Service Fund. On January 1, 1999, the SCC was replaced by the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC), and a new statutory procedure for appealing PRC orders came into effect (paras 1-3, 5).

Procedural History

• New Mexico State Corporation Commission, July 15, 1998: Issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order regarding costing methodologies (para 3).
• New Mexico State Corporation Commission, December 15, 1998: Issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order regarding held-order waiver petitions (para 2).
• New Mexico State Corporation Commission, December 31, 1998: Issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order regarding rules related to the rural high-cost and low-income components of the New Mexico Universal Service Fund (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (U.S. West Communications, Inc.): Argued that the repealed constitutional provisions of Article XI, Section 7 should apply, allowing for removal of the SCC orders to the Supreme Court. It claimed that applying the new statutory procedure under Section 63-7-1.1 would unlawfully change procedural rules and affect its rights in pending cases, violating Article IV, Section 34 of the New Mexico Constitution and Section 8-8-21(C) of the new legislation (paras 8-9).
• Appellee (New Mexico Public Regulation Commission) and Intervenor (Attorney General of New Mexico): Contended that the new statutory procedure under Section 63-7-1.1 should apply. They argued that the cases were not "pending" under Article IV, Section 34 or Section 8-8-21(C) because the SCC's final orders were issued before the new procedure took effect, and no removal petitions were filed in time (paras 9-10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the new statutory procedure under Section 63-7-1.1 applies to judicial review of SCC orders issued before January 1, 1999.
• Whether the cases were "pending" under Article IV, Section 34 of the New Mexico Constitution or Section 8-8-21(C) of the new legislation (paras 1, 8-9).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the new statutory procedure under Section 63-7-1.1 applies to judicial review of the SCC's final orders in these consolidated cases (para 21).
• The SCC's final orders were deemed to be final orders of the PRC for purposes of appeal under Section 63-7-1.1 (para 21).
• The notices of appeal filed by U.S. West were deemed timely (para 21).

Reasons

Per Minzner CJ (Baca, Franchini, and Serna JJ. concurring):

• The Court determined that the 1996 constitutional amendment creating the PRC and repealing the SCC's authority was not an "act of the legislature" under Article IV, Section 34. However, the new statutory procedure under Section 63-7-1.1 was an act of the legislature and required analysis under Article IV, Section 34 (paras 10-11).
• The Court concluded that the cases were not "pending" under Article IV, Section 34 or Section 8-8-21(C) because the SCC's final orders were issued before the new procedure took effect, and no removal petitions were filed in time. A case is generally not considered pending after a final judgment is filed unless specific exceptions apply, which were not present here (paras 12-18).
• The Court rejected U.S. West's argument that the PRC could issue orders of removal under the repealed provisions of Article XI, Section 7. It held that the PRC's authority was limited to treating the SCC's final orders as its own for purposes of appeal under Section 63-7-1.1 (paras 19-20).
• The Court emphasized that the new statutory procedure provided a neutral and orderly process for judicial review, ensuring meaningful appellate oversight without impairing U.S. West's rights (paras 16, 20).