utility shall establish and maintain any unreasonable differences as to rates of service either as between localities or as between classes of service. “[This] section does not prohibit variations in rates, nor does it require ‘equal service.’ Rather, it prohibits ‘unreasonable differences’ in rates of service between localities. Section 62-8-6 thus forbids arbitrary variations in rates, while permitting variations due to differing costs of service to different areas.” Albuquerque v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 115 N.M. 521, 531, 854 P.2d 348, 358 (1993) (“Allowing municipalities to contract with utilities for service rates to their inhabitants does not, ipso facto, violate Section 62-8-6.”); see also Albuquerque v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 2003-NMSC-028, ¶ 25, 134 N.M. 472, 79 P.3d 297 (<HOLDING>). {62} John D. Olmstead, Rates Manager for PNM,
holding in relevant part that a utility properly may apportion undergrounding costs to those customers located within the jurisdiction requiring the undergrounding holding that since property is located in foreign jurisdiction it is for that court to decide its fate recognizing that detariffmg would result in some increased administrative costs but anticipating those costs to be initial and fixed costs only resulting from the shift to a detariffed environment  such as the cost of developing short standard contracts recognizing that missing data were located in a laboratory within the constructive control of the state holding that state court could regulate the practice of law in federal courts located in the state