N.M. Stat. § 62-11-1 (2026)
Right of appeal
Any party to any proceeding before the commission may file a notice of appeal in the supreme court asking for a review of the commission's final orders. If an application for rehearing has been filed, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the application for rehearing has been refused or deemed refused because of the commission's failure to act within the time specified in Section 62-10-16 NMSA 1978. If an application for rehearing has not been filed, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the entry of the commission's final order. Every notice of appeal shall name the commission as appellee and shall identify the order from which the appeal is taken. Any person whose rights may be directly affected by the appeal may appear and become a party, or the supreme court may, upon proper notice, order any person to be joined as a party.
History: Laws 1941, ch. 84, § 66; 1941 Comp., § 72-901; 1953 Comp., § 68-9-1; Laws 1965, ch. 289, § 14; 1982, ch. 109, § 11; 1993, ch. 282, § 38.
ANNOTATIONS
Compiler's notes. — Sections 62-11-1 to 62-11-6 of the Public Utility Act are still effective as the repeal of Chapter 62, Article 6 by Laws 1998, Chapter 108, Section 82, effective July 1, 2003 Chapter 108, Section 82 was repealed prior to taking effect by Chapter 23, Section 1, Laws 2003. Although Laws 2003, Chapter 336, Section 8, amended Laws 1998, Chapter 82, as amended, an amendment of a repealed section is ineffective.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 Laws 2003, Chapter 416, Section 5 also repealed Laws 1998, Chapter 108, Section 82, as amended, a second time, however, that repeal is of no effect as the section had previously been repealed by Chapter 23, Section 1, Laws 2003.
The 1993 amendment, effective June 18, 1993, made minor stylistic changes in the first and second sentences, and deleted "New Mexico public service" preceding "commission" in the next-to-last sentence.
Requiring exhaustion of remedies is constitutional. — The requirement of the Public Utility Act that a person first exhaust his administrative remedy before resorting to the courts does not violate N.M. Const., art. VI, § 13, granting general jurisdiction to the district courts except as elsewhere limited in such constitution. Smith v. Southern Union Gas Co., 1954-NMSC-033, 58 N.M. 197, 269 P.2d 745.
Section liberally applied in determining standing for review. — The language "[a]ny party to any proceeding before the commission" is broad and requires liberal application in determining standing for review pursuant to this section. Community Pub. Serv. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 1983-NMSC-026, 99 N.M. 493, 660 P.2d 583.
Courts have jurisdiction to vacate unlawful administrative order. — The statutory provisions for limited review of an order of a commission by the district court do not oust the courts of jurisdiction to annul and vacate a final administrative order as unlawful. Llano, Inc. v. Southern Union Gas Co., 1964-NMSC-257, 75 N.M. 7, 399 P.2d 646.
Complete administrative remedy for testing rates is provided. — The Public Utility Act envelops the commission with an aura of broad power and jurisdiction to determine just and reasonable rates and sets up a complete remedy within the framework of the act for testing their propriety and reasonableness. Potash Co. of Am. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 1956-NMSC-091, 62 N.M. 1, 303 P.2d 908. Action will be dismissed if remedies have not been exhausted. — Where plaintiff brought action to enjoin commission from enforcing new gas rates and to recover amounts paid without waiting for final determination in pending statutory review proceeding, complaint was properly dismissed because plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Potash Co. of Am. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 1956-NMSC- 091, 62 N.M. 1, 303 P.2d 908.
Standard of review for appeal is whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency's decision. Gonzales v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 1985- NMSC-038, 102 N.M. 529, 697 P.2d 948.
Review limited. — On appeals from administrative bodies the questions to be answered by the court are questions of law and are restricted to whether the administrative body acted fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously, whether the order was supported by substantial evidence and, generally, whether the action of the administrative body was within the scope of its authority. Maestas v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 1973-NMSC-096, 85 N.M. 571, 514 P.2d 847; Llano, Inc. v. Southern Union Gas Co., 1964-NMSC-257, 75 N.M. 7, 399 P.2d 646.
Section 62-12-2 applicable. — Where it is alleged that the public regulation commission is acting outside the scope of its jurisdiction or refusing to perform under the Public Utility Act, Section 62-12-2 NMSA 1978 is applicable. City of Sunland Park v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n, 2004-NMCA-024, 135 N.M. 143, 85 P.3d 267, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-002, 135 N.M. 169, 86 P.3d 47.
Law reviews. — For note, "The Public Service Commission: A Legal Analysis of an Administrative System," see 3 N.M.L. Rev. 184 (1973).
For article, "Cost of Service Indexing: An Analysis of New Mexico's Experiment in Public Utility Regulation," see 9 N.M.L. Rev. 287 (1979).
For annual survey of New Mexico law relating to administrative law, see 12 N.M.L. Rev. 1 (1982).
For comment, "Regulation of Electric Utilities and Affiliated Coal Companies - Determining Reasonable Expenses," see 26 Nat. Res. J. 851 (1986).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 64 Am. Jur. 2d Public Utilities §§ 276 to 291.
73B C.J.S. Public Utilities §§ 96, 101 to 138.