A. The following are the objects and purposes of this act.
(1) Experience has proven that electric service by rural electric cooperatives must be furnished under the regulation of the commission in order to effectuate the purposes of both the Rural Electric Cooperative Act [Chapter 62, Article 15 NMSA 1978], as amended, and the Public Utility Act [Chapter 62, Articles 1 to 6 and 8 to 13 NMSA 1978], as amended, and that without extending the coverage of the Public Utility Act, as amended, to rural electric cooperatives, the declared policy of the Public Utility Act, as amended, and the general welfare, business and industry of the state may be frustrated.
(2) It is the declared policy of the state that preservation of the public health, safety and welfare, the interest of consumers and the interest of investor-members require that the construction, development and extension of utility plants and facilities be without unnecessary duplication and economic waste. Experience has proven that this purpose cannot be accomplished without bringing the rural electric cooperatives and persons heretofore recognized as public utilities into parity of treatment with respect to the commission's independent jurisdiction and power to prevent unreasonable interference between proposed and existing plants, lines and systems.
(3) Experience has also proven that rural electric cooperatives are substantially different from investor-owned utilities, particularly relative to setting rates. Under the Rural Electric Cooperative Act, rural electric cooperatives are nonprofit membership corporations whose members have direct control over the cooperative's rates through an elected board of trustees. Generally, consumers of the cooperative's power are members. In contrast, consumers of power from investor-owned utilities have no control over the setting of rates by such utilities which are profit motivated. Experience has proven that the costs to rural electric cooperatives and the public at large in complete government regulation of their rates is greatly disproportionate to the need and benefits of complete rate regulation and interferes with the setting of fair, just and reasonable rates to all utilities. Experience has shown that a rational basis exists to provide procedures for setting rates of rural electric cooperatives different from and more limited than those for setting rates of investor-owned utilities. Without limiting government regulation of rate setting by rural electric cooperatives as provided by Section 62-8-7 NMSA 1978, the declared policy of the Public Utility Act, the provision of reasonable and proper utility services at fair, just and reasonable rates, and the general welfare, business and industry of the state may be frustrated.
(4) It is the intent of the legislature in enacting this statute to bring up to date the laws pertaining to public utilities and rural electric cooperatives so that the rural electric cooperative which is a public utility is subject to reasonable burdens and entitled to reasonable benefits which apply to public utilities generally, to insure more reasonable public regulation and supervision of public utilities, to facilitate the prevention of unnecessary duplication and economic waste between utility systems and to establish a system which will more adequately provide for the development and extension of reasonable and proper utility services at fair, just and reasonable rates. The accomplishment of this intent is necessary and vital to the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare.
B. This act shall be liberally construed to carry out its purposes.
C. Nothing contained in any other act governing the creation and operation of rural electric cooperatives which are public utilities, including Laws 1937, Chapter 100 and the Rural Electric Cooperative Act, as amended, shall be construed to conflict with any duty to which such a utility may be subject or with any benefit to which such a utility may be entitled under the Public Utility Act, as now or hereafter amended. In the event any provision of such other act, including Laws 1937, Chapter 100 or the Rural Electric Cooperative Act, as now or hereafter amended, is held to be repugnant to any provision of the Public Utility Act, as now or hereafter amended, the latter shall be controlling and the former is repealed to the extent of the repugnancy.
History: 1953 Comp., § 68-3-1.1, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 96, § 9; 1985, ch. 176, § 1.
ANNOTATIONSCompiler's notes. — The term "this act", referred to in Subsections A and B, first appears in Laws 1985, ch. 176, which is codified at 62-3-2 and 62-8-7 NMSA 1978, but is probably intended to be a reference to the Public Utility Act.
Sections 62-3-1 to 62-3-5 of the Public Utility Act are still effective as the repeal of Chapter 62, Article 3 by Laws 1998, Chapter 108, Section 82, effective July 1, 2003 was repealed prior to taking effect by Chapter 23, Section 1, Laws 2003. Although Laws 2003, Chapter 336, Section 8, amended Laws 1998, Chapter 82, as amended, an amendment of a repealed section is ineffective. See Quintana v. N.M. Dep't of Corrs.,, 100 N.M. 224, 668 P.2d 1101 (1983). Laws 2003, Chapter 416, Section 5 also repealed Laws 1998, Chapter 108, Section 82, as amended, a second time, however, that repeal is of no effect as the section had previously been repealed by Chapter 23, Section 1, Laws 2003.
Cross references. — For Public Utility Act repealing repugnant provisions of Rural Electric Cooperative Act, see 62-15-32 NMSA 1978.
The 1985 amendment deleted "hereby declared to be" following "The following are" and "1967" following "purposes of this" in the introductory paragraph of Subsection A, deleted "public service" preceding "commission" near the beginning of Subsection A(1), substituted "this purpose" for "such purpose", "plants" for "plant" and "systems" for "system" in the second sentence of Subsection A(2), added present Subsection A(3), renumbered former Subsection A(3) as present Subsection A(4), substituting "which is a public utility is subject to reasonable burdens and entitled to reasonable benefits which apply to public utilities generally, to insure more reasonable public regulation" for "subject to all the burdens and entitled to all the benefits which apply to public utilities generally, to insure more rigid public regulation" in that subsection, deleted "1967" following "This" at the beginning of Subsection B, divided the former provisions of Subsection C into two sentences, substituting "operation of rural electric cooperatives which are public utilities" for "operation of public utilities brought under the regulation of the commission by virtue of this 1967 act" and deleting "and" following "hereafter amended" in the first sentence and substituting "is held to be" for "shall be held to be" and deleting "shall be, and" following "former" and "hereby" following "former is" in the second sentence of Subsection C.
Cooperatives may not be made utilities but excepted from regulations upon others. — Laws 1961, ch. 89 (repealed), insofar as it attempted to place rural electric cooperatives under the Public Utility Act by including them within the definition of "public utility" constituted an arbitrary and unreasonable classification in violation of the equal protection clauses because cooperatives were included in the act though not required to render service to the general public and no provision was made for complete regulation of rates charged by them or securities issued by them, whereas other electric utilities had to render service to the public and their rates and financing were completely supervised and controlled. Community Pub. Serv. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 1966-NMSC-053, 76 N.M. 314, 414 P.2d 675, cert. denied, 385 U.S. 933, 87 S. Ct. 292, 17 L. Ed. 2d 213 (1966).
Formerly, rural electric cooperatives were not regulated by public utilities commission (now public regulation commission). Socorro Elec. Coop. v. Public Serv. Co., 1959-NMSC-105, 66 N.M. 343, 348 P.2d 88.
Commission may not order that refund be passed on to consumers. — Public service commission (now public regulation commission) has no express or implied statutory authority to order the flow-through of refunds to electric company from power supplier to consumers. N.M. Elec. Serv. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 1970-NMSC-097, 81 N.M. 683, 472 P.2d 648.
Where refund was not trust fund for consumers. — Where refund was ordered paid over to power company by the federal power commission without any restrictions, and there was nothing in the order indicating an intention on the part of the commission to create a "trust fund" for the benefit of the ultimate consumers, the refund did not constitute a trust fund belonging to company's customers. N.M. Elec. Serv. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 1970-NMSC-097, 81 N.M. 683, 472 P.2d 648.
It was the intent of the legislature that the Public Utility Act be liberally construed. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-81.
Law reviews. — For note, "Conservation, Lifeline Rates and Public Utility Regulatory Commissions," see 19 Nat. Res. J. 411 (1979).