Supreme Court hears challenge to PRC evidence limits in PNM AMI approval

The New Mexico Supreme Court heard competing arguments about whether intervenors were improperly barred from presenting health and safety evidence related to Public Service Company of New Mexico's (PNM) proposed grid modernization project, which the legislature's statute expressly includes advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) as a permissible technology.

Appellant counsel (Presenter) told the court that evidence and expert testimony on air pollution and health were excluded from the evidentiary record and that the hearing examiner's relevancy ruling effectively prevented her clients from proving case-specific harms. "I just don't think it's a matter of public policy that's an outcome we can live with," the appellant argued, noting the project's scale as an example of why health and safety evidence merits consideration. Erin LeCoke, counsel for the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, replied that "The commission is not arguing that safety can never be considered" but maintained the particular proceedings were limited to the reasonableness of PNM's application and that the excluded material amounted to a generalized attack on AMI rather than evidence tied to the application.

The bench pressed both sides on where and when questions about AMI safety may be litigated. PNM counsel John Verhul said meter-safety statutes and rules already govern the safety of installed equipment and pointed to standards such as the National Electrical Safety Code, FCC requirements and NMAC rule 17.9.560.14 as the proper technical yardsticks. The court took the case under advisement and deemed the case submitted at the end of argument.