New Mexico Exchange Carrier Group v. New Mexico Public Regulation Commission

No. S-1-SC-34933, consolidated with No. S-1-SC-35036 · Supreme Court of New Mexico · March 17, 2016 · No. Nos. S-1-SC-34933 and S-1-SC-35036, consolidated

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Mexico reviewed consolidated appeals concerning the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission’s 2015 rural universal service fund surcharge order and related rule amendments. The court concluded that the 3% surcharge rate was arbitrary, unsupported by substantial evidence, and inconsistent with the PRC’s own rules requiring a prudent fund balance. The court also addressed the rule amendments, including the surcharge cap and revised funding formula, and reversed the PRC’s orders for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. The PRC's 2015 Surcharge Rate Order was arbitrary, unsupported by substantial evidence, and violated the PRC's existing rule because the 3% surcharge was projected to leave the fund with a substantial deficit rather than a prudent fund balance.
  2. The PRC did not prejudge the rulemaking, although language in the Surcharge Rate Order suggesting that the pending rule changes would reduce fund payments was troubling.
  3. The PRC's adoption of the 3% surcharge cap and revised funding formula was not supported by substantial evidence.
  4. The PRC had authority to modify the funding formula through rulemaking, but the revised formula and surcharge cap required substantial evidentiary support that was absent from the record.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the PRC's 2015 Surcharge Rate Order was arbitrary, unsupported by substantial evidence, or inconsistent with the PRC's existing rule requiring a prudent fund balance.
  2. Whether the 2013 statutory requirement to establish a surcharge cap authorized the PRC to operate the fund at a projected deficit or disregard its existing funding rules when setting the 2015 surcharge.
  3. Whether the PRC's rulemaking order adopting a 3% surcharge cap and changing the funding formula was supported by substantial evidence.
  4. Whether the PRC prejudged the rulemaking by referring to the pending rule changes when it issued the Surcharge Rate Order.
  5. Whether the PRC had authority to modify the funding formula through rulemaking.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (8)

  • In re Fed.-State Joint Bd. on Universal Serv., 12 F.C.C.R. 8776, 8780-86 (1997)(cited)
  • Tex. Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. FCC, 183 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999)(cited)
  • N.M. Indus. Energy Consumers v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n, 2007-NMSC-053, ¶ 13, 142 N.M. 533, 168 P.3d 105(followed)
  • Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Corp. Comm'n (In re Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw.), 1982-NMSC-106, ¶ 29, 98 N.M. 749, 652 P.2d 1200(followed)
  • Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F.3d 431, 453 (3d Cir. 2011)(cited)
  • Nat'l Tour Brokers Ass'n v. United States, 591 F.2d 896, 902 (D.C. Cir. 1978)(followed)
  • In re PNM Gas Servs., 2000-NMSC-012, ¶ 4, 129 N.M. 1, 1 P.3d 383(followed)
  • Rinker v. State Corp. Comm'n, 1973-NMSC-021, ¶ 5, 84 N.M. 626, 506 P.2d 783(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…